1) While the book contained some proposals for reform, it was explicitly calling for elimination of intellectual property, and in fact the book repeatedly claimed that studies suggested all parties would benefit from its removal, although Atkinson found no study that truly documented that claim. Boldrin replied that he is politically realistic and knows you must start with reform before you can get to full elimination.
*Apparently Atkinson missed Chapter 8 of the book which that the best available data shows that intellectual property has little or no effect on innovation. As there are many harms, also well documented throughout the book, a policy with no social benefits and many harms would seem ripe for elimination. I don't know, by the way, of any study or assertion that elimination of intellectual property would benefit everybody - I'm pretty sure, for example, that some authors, movies stars, and others, would make less money without IP than they do with it. The stated goal of IP however, is to promote innovation and progress, not to enrich specific individuals.
2) There is no focus on incentives for innovation in the book, essential if you are to discuss IP. Boldrin replied that innovation occurs often without incentives, a position Atkinson strongly disputed.
*The central theme of the book is that innovation requires incentives. We spend chapter after chapter documenting what the incentives are when there is no intellectual property, so this increases our doubt that Atkinson read the book carefully.
3) It was backwards to claim the Internet means creators should have to extract rents more quickly now after release, as the digital age shows it's even harder to do so as pirated works produce that much more quickly.
*I can't even parse what is being claimed here, but we've devoted a lot of time to the issue of how rents are extracted in the presence of cheap internet copying. While it is certainly possible to charge and profit with rapid copying and no intellectual property, the evidence suggests that the best business model in many cases is that of giving the recorded/copiable product away for free over the internet and selling complimentary products, for example, in the case of musicians, live performances.
4) The book sees price falling to zero but ignores the fact that in that scenario, revenues fall to zero.
*This statement is mathematically incorrect. As a practical matter, as price falls revenue can go up or down, depending on how much sales increase.
5) The book has an unfortunate tendency toward diatribe, such as calling IP evil, referring to US Supreme Court justices as having double-digit IQs and suggesting that those who support copyright don't appreciate facts.
*I admit the book has an aggressive tone, although I'm not sure all these assertions about what we say are correct. But speaking of diatribe, we are not the ones who refer to our opponents as thieves and pirates.
As a Schumpeterian myself...I think Atkinson is right on the money. Copyright, and IP in general, is all about incentives. Rights are given, a limited monopoly is created, to encourage authors and inventors to produce writings and discoveries. This comes from the Progress Clause of the US Constitution, aptly named, as a focus only on use of end-products will soon leave you with fewer end-products.
*We are not Schumpeterian because Schumpeter created a theory for which there is no evidence. Notice how it is simply asserted that IP incentives achieve the desired effect. It is funny how those people who decry theory (we are theorists) assert their own theories as if they were evidence. We are extremely concerned with innovation as the engine of modern economies; we started as did most economists thinking that limited monopoly was a necessary incentive for innovation. Based on evidence we no longer believe that. The evidence can be found in our book. On the face of it the proposition that monopoly (even limited monopoly) is somehow the friend of innovation is not terribly plausible.
