Patent-Seeking as a Defensive Move -- Then, and Now
In the comments to Let's Bring Back the Good Old Days of English Patents, Jeff Tucker makes the following excellent observation:
And its purpose [of patents of monopoly granted by English monarchs] was to cement political loyalty in a time of grave political-religious upheaval. It was the same on the Continent with the first mercantile grants of privilege for producers of many products. The Kings wanted credit for the growing existence of consumer goods and services. The first producers wanted security against being looted by the King and otherwise being outcompeted. Everyone won but the consumer.
In other words, merchants who were afraid of being looted by the monarch's discretionary power sought monopolies as a means of protecting themselves from the state. They joined the state to keep the enemy close, so to speak. But is this merely a thing of the past? No!--patents are often acquired nowadays for defensive purposes--to defend against patent infringement threats caused by the state's grant of patent monopolies to their competitors! As Jeff similarly notes,
Today we think of a exclusive privileges to make clothing or sugar or hand tools are ridiculous and outmoded. But exclusive privileges to produce movies, books, and drugs? Oh those are oh so necessary, else we'd be sunk!
Comments (4)
Person
I made a lot of excellent observations in that thread. Where's my recognition?
As for Jeffrey_Tucker's comment and yours:
If a system of recongizing and enforcing rights doesn't work well, getting the state on your side can be rational. If your rights to sell tea on tenuous, getting a tea monopoly may be better than hoping and praying you don't get banned. If someone may later win a patent for an obvious idea that you have long been using, getting a monopoly on that idea may be better than hoping and praying that a patent isn't granted to this latecomer.
There are indictments of poor systems for allocating property rights and patents, not of property rights and patents as such.
Published: September 6, 2007 2:43 PM
eric lansing
what are you, six?
go back to digg.com.
Published: September 6, 2007 3:42 PM
nicholas gray
Here's an idea I'd like to throw at you. Instead of Copyright, we might try Public Copyright. Firstly, I should explain that I am a defender of private property. I call my principles Pansecessionism, as we should all have the right to secede, and be monarchs of our own lands. Local councils should be democratic instruments of property-owning rulers. Public Copyright would mean that the Local authorities would only recognise that work, and only stock it on Local public libraries, and you could only advertise that product publicly. Private individuals could make their own copies, or variants, for private use or sale, on private property. The motto of Pansecessionism would be 'LET OWNERS RULE'. If I produce a book like another person's book, and I have not passed an anti-plagiarism law on my land, then I am not breaking my own laws. Public lands would be a different matter.
Published: September 6, 2007 8:30 PM
Jean Paul
Not sure I get the 'public copyright' thing, but the pansecessionism idea sounds about right. That's really what it all comes down to, isn't it? Sovereign individuals.
Published: September 10, 2007 8:22 AM