Against Monopoly

defending the right to innovate


Monopoly corrupts. Absolute monopoly corrupts absolutely.

Copyright Notice: We don't think much of copyright, so you can do what you want with the content on this blog. Of course we are hungry for publicity, so we would be pleased if you avoided plagiarism and gave us credit for what we have written. We encourage you not to impose copyright restrictions on your "derivative" works, but we won't try to stop you. For the legally or statist minded, you can consider yourself subject to a Creative Commons Attribution License.

current posts | more recent posts



So, does that mean that there is a possible compromise that could be pushed on these grounds? (Assuming we can't get rid of the monopolies all together).

Assume that the number of approved patents that depend on a given patent approximates the sequentialism associated with that invention. Change the law so that the validity period of a patent is shortened for one year for every new patent that is approved that depends on the patent (in question) up to a minimum of, say, 2 years.

This way, there would be an incentive to develop new ideas based on patents by others (you get the ideas on public domain faster) and the innovating companies should push for more and newer and more important innovations to maintain their monopolies (instead of sitting in their heels for all 20 years with a patent).

Innovations that are singular (i.e. do not provoke a number of incremental improvements) would receive the full patent protection length and those that create a big number of sequential small step innovations would receive a relatively short protection.

What do you think?

Your proposal is an improvement over the current situation.

I do not think it is an improvement over our proposal on this blog, which is to abolish intellectual monopoly altogether (conveniently, you have ruled this out by assumption :P).

I don't have to explain to you why firms have an incentive to keep innovating without intellectual monopoly.

I think, given the reality that patents impose significant costs on society and have been shown to produce very little innovation, we have to loosen the assumption that patents are a good idea in general.

Therefore, the question is not "How can we preserve the patent system in face of these objections?" but the question is "In what case, if any, will patents be a good idea?" and as a provisional solution pick the free market, since it's the best alternative we know of so far.


I agree with you that abolishing intellectual monopolies is the best solution. I'm sure you've thought about this, but how do you propose we get there? Do you focus mainly on turning the heads of your fellow researchers, or how? I really would like to see how it might be possible.

I'm just a kid, not a researcher. I wish. I'm calling it "our proposal" because I agree with it.

The best I can think of to change this is activism. Start a cult, recruit converts, and use your market power to gain a foothold for the free market. If you can manage to successfully compete, by virtue of such a community being able to produce more efficiently, you can grow and force monopolies - they won't be monopolies anymore - out of the market. Of course this requires a great deal of "me-too" innovation. And some altruism.

Another option is to wait until the intellectual monopoly system collapses by itself; either because it becomes unworkable or because social support vanishes. Although it is arguably already an unworkable system with little social support.

Anyone have a better idea?

current posts | more recent posts

Submit Comment

Blog Post


Email (optional):

Your Humanity:

Prove you are human by retyping the anti-spam code.
For example if the code is unodosthreefour,
type 1234 in the textbox below.

Anti-spam Code



Most Recent Comments

Some history

Killing people with patents SYSSY

IIPA thinks open source equals piracy rerwerwerwer

IIPA thinks open source equals piracy Thank you for this great

Questions and Challenges For Defenders of the Current Copyright Regime Eu acho que os direitos autorais da invenção ou projeto devem ser

IIPA thinks open source equals piracy https://essaywritingsolutions.co.uk/

Your Compulsory Assignment for Tonight rerrerrr

IIPA thinks open source equals piracy rwerwewre

An analysis of patent trolls by a trademark lawyer

Questions and Challenges For Defenders of the Current Copyright Regime It is one of the finest websites I have stumbled upon. It is not only well developed, but has good

Killing people with patents I'm not really commenting the post, but rather asking if this blog is going to make a comeback

The right to rub smooth using a hardened steel tool with ridges Finally got around to looking at the comments, sorry for delay... Replying to Stephan: I'm sorry

Let's See: Pallas, Pan, Patents, Persephone, Perses, Poseidon, Prometheus... Seems like a kinda bizarre proposal to me. We just need to abolish the patent system, not replace

The right to rub smooth using a hardened steel tool with ridges I'm a bit confused by this--even if "hired to invent" went away, that would just change the default

Do we need a law? @ Alexander Baker: So basically, if I copy parts of 'Titus Andronicus' to a webpage without

Do we need a law? The issue is whether the crime is punished not who punishes it. If somebody robs our house we do

Do we need a law? 1. Plagiarism most certainly is illegal, it is called "copyright infringement". One very famous

Yet another proof of the inutility of copyright. The 9/11 Commission report cost $15,000,000 to produce, not counting the salaries of the authors.

WKRP In Cincinnati - Requiem For A Masterpiece P.S. The link to Amazon's WKRP product page:

WKRP In Cincinnati - Requiem For A Masterpiece Hopefully some very good news. Shout! Factory is releasing the entire series of WKRP in Cincinnati,