logo

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.


back

The Chinese Get It

How could they not given they read Michele and me?

Comments

By the way, how much has Against Intellectual Monopoly sold so far?
Kid, that's like asking an evangelist or a missionary how many bibles they've sold :)
I'm not sure that I understand. Was it an inappropriate question?
This is on par with "Dog Bites Man". Next!
My first reaction was to drop this comment in the Chinadaily article comments thread you point to, until i realized its a fake comments section: http://bbs.chinadaily.com.cn/viewthread.php?contentid=11891425 so i hope you can accept it here.

1. This might be the definite proof that the system you propose is close to communism (no implicit insult here).

2.On the other hand they miss totally the point about IPR:

--"But the purpose of an IPR system is not only to protect intellectual property, but also to encourage innovation, maintain social justice and thus promote comprehensive economic and social progress"

The purpose of IPR system is that people make public their research. The alternative is trade secret.

--"The fundamental driving force of innovation is competition, while IPR protection in substance is a kind of monopoly"

The fundamental driven force of innovation is creativity; IPR is not a kind of monopoly, it is a clear monopoly granted by the state in exchange of inventions and creations publication.

--"In their economics paper, Perfectly Competitive Innovation, Michele Boldrin and David K. Levine argue that in many current and historical markets, innovation has thrived in the absence of copyrights, patents and other forms of monopoly power"

They try to argue with the unscientific method of picking just the cases that fit their theory, and therefore make an unconvincingly case.

3. As for software patents I only can suggest them to read the following piece from someone who knows what he is talking about:

http://www.paulgraham.com/softwarepatents.html

"pryonpropatentuyk" writes:

My first reaction was to drop this comment in the Chinadaily article comments thread you point to, until i realized its a fake comments section: http://bbs.chinadaily.com.cn/viewthread.php?contentid=11891425 so i hope you can accept it here.

Classic erroneous presupposition. This website is not a toilet.

1. This might be the definite proof that the system you propose is close to communism (no implicit insult here).

Classic unsubstantiated and erroneous claim.

2.On the other hand they miss totally the point about IPR

Classic unsubstantiated and erroneous claim.

The purpose of IPR system is that people make public their research.

It's also to promote creation in the first place. It fails at both.

The alternative is trade secret.

Classic unsubstantiated and erroneous claim. Disclosure without patent is a third option, and a common one among tech companies, particularly the more agile software firms.

The fundamental driven force of innovation is creativity

Classic pontification.

IPR is not a kind of monopoly

Classic unsubstantiated and erroneous claim.

it is a clear monopoly granted by the state in exchange of inventions and creations publication.

And it doesn't work well at all. Nor is it needed.

"In their economics paper, Perfectly Competitive Innovation, Michele Boldrin and David K. Levine argue that in many current and historical markets, innovation has thrived in the absence of copyrights, patents and other forms of monopoly power"

They try to argue with the unscientific method of picking just the cases that fit their theory

Classic unsubstantiated and erroneous claim.

and therefore make an unconvincingly case.

Classic unsubstantiated and erroneous claim.

As for software patents I only can suggest them to read the following piece from someone who knows what he is talking about:

http://www.paulgraham.com/softwarepatents.html

Classic unsubstantiated and erroneous claim. No software patents should be granted, even for nonobvious software "inventions". Software is already covered by another IPR: copyright. Granting software patents as well is therefore double-dipping.

And that's if you *accept* the general premise behind IPR. That premise is actually fatally flawed and all IPR should be abolished posthaste.

Hey...Looks like you got a mention in a paper:

Intellectual Property's Great Fallacy

Eric E. Johnson University of North Dakota School of Law

January 23, 2011

http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1746343

...that's both of you, David and Michele.


Submit Comment

Blog Post

Name:

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
SixZeroUnoSeven:


Post



   

Most Recent Comments

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,

What's copywritable? Go fish in court. @ Anonymous: You misunderstood my intent. I was actually trying to point out a huge but basic

Rights Violations Aren't the Only Bads I hear that nonsense from pro-IP people all the

Intellectual Property Fosters Corporate Concentration Yeah, I see the discouragement of working on a patented device all the time. Great examples

Music without copyright Hundreds of businessmen are looking for premium quality article distribution services that can be

Les patent trolls ne sont pas toujours des officines

Les patent trolls ne sont pas toujours des officines

Patent Lawyers Who Don't Toe the Line Should Be Punished! Moreover "the single most destructive force to innovation is patents". We'd like to unite with you

Bonfire of the Missalettes!

Does the decline in total factor productivity explain the drop in innovation? So, if our patent system was "broken," TFP of durable goods should have dropped. Conversely, since

Does the decline in total factor productivity explain the drop in innovation? I wondered about TFP, because I had heard that TFP was increasing. Apparently, it depends on who

Music without copyright I do agree with all the ideas you have presented in your post. They are very convincing and will