Against Monopoly
defending the right to innovate
Against IM
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.
Finally proof
Economic logic proves Boldrin and Levine are correct
[Posted at 02/11/2009 07:10 AM by David K. Levine on Against IM 
comments(4)]
Comments
Why, because he happens to agree with the authors? Sorry, but this is indeed a slender reed upon which to assert the authors "are correct".
[Comment at 02/11/2009 08:11 AM by MLS]
David was having a tongue in cheek moment; but, seriously, if you can point out where their book is inconsistent with economic logic, have at it.
[Comment at 02/11/2009 05:52 PM by Bill Stepp]
Economic logic? Surely you jest. AIM is little more than asserting causation without any basis in fact. The "facts" are of anecdotal interest, but prove nothing other than the authors' deep seated animus towards anything dealing with patents and copyrights. The book delves into the authors' interpretations of law, an endeavor for which they are ill suited. Of course, the fact they are simply wrong on far too many of their pronoucements of law seriously detracts from the points they are attempting to convey.
In sum, this particular book provides not a whit of scholarly research and economic analysis. It is little more that a diatribe calculated to cherry pick largely irrelevant facts, mold them in a manner that suits their purpose, and then openly declare that the authors are right and everyone else is wrong.
Sorry, but I expect far more from the work of scholars before I am prepared to give it serious consideration.
[Comment at 02/12/2009 11:04 PM by MLS]
to mls:
pot calling kettle black: what about citing some of these supposed legal interpretative errors to bolster your argument? unless you're tongue in cheek, too.
[Comment at 02/14/2009 04:53 AM by newson]
Submit Comment
Most Recent Comments
A Texas Tale of Intellectual Property Litigation (A Watering Hole Patent Trolls) Aunque suena insignificante, los números son alarmantes y nos demuestran que no es tan mínimo como
at 06/29/2022 08:48 AM by Abogado de Accidente de Carro en Huntington Park
at 11/27/2021 05:53 PM by Nobody
at 01/06/2021 06:57 PM by Anonymous
at 01/06/2021 06:57 PM by Anonymous
at 01/06/2021 06:57 PM by Anonymous
at 01/06/2021 06:57 PM by Anonymous
at 01/06/2021 06:57 PM by Anonymous
at 01/06/2021 06:57 PM by Anonymous
at 01/06/2021 06:57 PM by Anonymous
at 01/06/2021 06:57 PM by Anonymous
at 01/06/2021 06:57 PM by Anonymous
at 01/06/2021 06:57 PM by Anonymous
at 01/06/2021 06:57 PM by Anonymous
at 01/06/2021 06:57 PM by Anonymous
at 01/06/2021 06:57 PM by Anonymous
at 01/06/2021 06:57 PM by Anonymous
at 01/06/2021 06:47 PM by Anonymous
at 01/06/2021 06:47 PM by Anonymous
at 01/06/2021 06:42 PM by Anonymous
at 01/06/2021 06:42 PM by Anonymous