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.
I believe the commonly used paraphrase is "Intellectual Property is Mind Theft."
[Comment at 04/17/2008 04:23 PM by Geoff]
In my experience in Korea, you will not get enforcement of IP rights until the country enforcing them has domestic IP it wants protected. In Korea, we were trying to get the police to close small retailers selling pirate software and music CDs and movie DVDs. It proved to be pointless; the cops didn't have the heart to put the little guys out of business and they were soon back up and running. Things changed when Korean creators of IP wanted their monopolies protected. The fact that it is beginning to happen in China as suggested in this story is encouraging for the IP monopolists. We will soon have to look elsewhere for piracy. Fortunately there will always be another poor developing country in which to find it.
[Comment at 04/21/2008 06:53 AM by John Bennett]
I wonder if the best anti-IP strategy might be to lobby the Chinese government, perhaps via some fellow economists at distinguished Chinese universities. The system is so ossified in the US that reform seems hopeless. But in China, the leaders might recognize the value of innovation and competition based upon the rapid tech transfer they achieved through leaky foreign joint ventures and that sort of thing. (And, BTW, I think this would have been a great example for the Against Intellectual Monopoly book -- Western firms couldn't extract their monopoly profits in China, but were willing to go there anyway!) Furthermore, the Chinese leaders, after being lectured by Western economists for so long, might relish some policy one-upmanship. The central government has the power to establish this sort of policy, and might find anti-monopoly rhetoric to be politically convenient in the near future, now that unemployment is rising. And then, once China begins to eclipse the West technologically with the use of its secret weapon -- weak IP law -- perhaps the fear and amazement will be enough to change the system here too.
[Comment at 03/15/2009 07:39 PM by Stephen McCracken]
Chinese companies are quite prolific patenters in the west. For example, Chinese companies increased the number of patents they obtained in the U.S. by a factor of nearly 20 between 1994 and 2007. U.S. companies, in comparison, increased their patents by about 40-45% in the same time frame, and Japanese companies increased their patents by only about 50%.
China has also recognized the value of a robust domestic patent system as foreign companies enter their country and often dominate the local technology. Indeed, Chinese investors are now asking whether patents are available to protect newly developed products. I think there are indications that Chinese companies (as has been typical with Japanese companies) may well be more strategically adept at using intellectual property than most western companies.
Why would China want to give up such a valuable tool to protect inventiveness? I suspect your entreaties will not only fall on deaf ears, but ears that are more frequently more pro-IP than western listeners.
[Comment at 03/15/2009 08:27 PM by Lonnie E. Holder]
Mind theft? That is sick. You cannot steal something from an inventor unless the inventor wishes to make the invention available to the world. To pretend that an inventor should be required to share their invention is a travesty.
[Comment at 03/15/2009 08:30 PM by Lonnie E. Holder]
Patents that can be used against Western firms are always useful, of course. The question is, might China's leaders be convinced that enforcing patent claims among Chinese firms is a bad idea? I notice that L.E.H. opposes the premise of this blog, so let's just consider that question to be hypothetical.
Given that American trade representatives have been whining for years over lax IP enforcement in China, perhaps continued feet-dragging could eventually result in retaliation from the US. But what does China have to lose? If their economy is flexible enough, then maybe they can afford a hit to their export markets. Why do they need to sell anything for the next 10 years? The world owes them $1.9 trillion, last I checked.
[Comment at 03/15/2009 09:03 PM by Stephen McCracken]
Most Recent Comments
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
What's copywritable? Go fish in court. @ Anonymous: You misunderstood my intent. I was actually trying to point out a huge but basic
at 05/05/2014 01:03 PM by Sheogorath
Rights Violations Aren't the Only Bads I hear that nonsense from pro-IP people all the
at 04/07/2014 04:47 AM by Dan McCracken
Intellectual Property Fosters Corporate Concentration Yeah, I see the discouragement of working on a patented device all the time. Great examples
at 01/13/2014 06:13 AM by Anonymous
Music without copyright Hundreds of businessmen are looking for premium quality article distribution services that can be
at 11/28/2013 05:03 PM by Stephanie Smith
at 11/28/2013 09:23 AM by Anonymous
at 11/28/2013 09:22 AM by Anonymous
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
at 11/24/2013 10:48 AM by SpaceCorp Technologies
at 11/20/2013 03:18 PM by Anonymous
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
at 11/02/2013 08:09 PM by Anonymous
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
at 11/02/2013 08:08 PM by Anonymous