Thanks to Alex Tabarrok at www.marginalrevolution.com.
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.
James E. Bessen and new Nobel winner Eric Maskin maintain that the software, semiconductor, and computer industries have seen considerable innovation with little patent protection. When patents were granted to these industries starting in the 1980s, they demonstated no R&D increases or productivity gains. Here is the paper .
Thanks to Alex Tabarrok at www.marginalrevolution.com.
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?
[Comment at 10/19/2007 03:20 AM by Mikko]
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.
[Comment at 10/23/2007 01:11 PM by Kid]
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.
[Comment at 10/25/2007 10:31 PM by Mikko]
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?
[Comment at 10/26/2007 01:52 AM by Kid]
Most Recent Comments
at 01/09/2020 09:14 AM by Anonymous
at 12/18/2019 03:10 PM by SYSSY
IIPA thinks open source equals piracy rerwerwerwer
at 07/08/2019 11:35 PM by WolfLarsen Larsen
IIPA thinks open source equals piracy Thank you for this great
at 06/21/2019 02:13 PM by spam name
Questions and Challenges For Defenders of the Current Copyright Regime Eu acho que os direitos autorais da invenção ou projeto devem ser
at 05/11/2019 09:15 PM by Marcelo
IIPA thinks open source equals piracy https://essaywritingsolutions.co.uk/
at 04/07/2019 11:22 PM by WolfLarsen
at 04/07/2019 11:21 PM by WolfLarsen
IIPA thinks open source equals piracy rwerwewre
at 04/07/2019 11:20 PM by WolfLarsen
at 02/05/2019 07:44 AM by Anonymous
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
at 06/19/2018 10:36 PM by Michael Jones
Killing people with patents I'm not really commenting the post, but rather asking if this blog is going to make a comeback
at 01/09/2018 03:46 AM by Anonymous
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
at 05/08/2015 08:35 AM by Dan Dobkin
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
at 04/10/2015 10:44 AM by Stephan Kinsella
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
at 04/10/2015 10:34 AM by Stephan Kinsella
Do we need a law? @ Alexander Baker: So basically, if I copy parts of 'Titus Andronicus' to a webpage without
at 01/08/2015 08:58 PM by Sheogorath
Do we need a law? The issue is whether the crime is punished not who punishes it. If somebody robs our house we do
at 11/17/2014 04:48 AM by David K. Levine
Do we need a law? 1. Plagiarism most certainly is illegal, it is called "copyright infringement". One very famous
at 10/29/2014 10:49 AM by Alexander Baker
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.
at 09/20/2014 03:19 PM by Alexander Baker
WKRP In Cincinnati - Requiem For A Masterpiece P.S. The link to Amazon's WKRP product page:
at 06/28/2014 10:03 AM by Doris
WKRP In Cincinnati - Requiem For A Masterpiece Hopefully some very good news. Shout! Factory is releasing the entire series of WKRP in Cincinnati,
at 06/28/2014 10:00 AM by Doris