Unauthorized copies of items that have trademark or copyright protection are NOT counterfeits.
We are reprinting this important commentary from Dean Baker:
“The difference is that an item that is actually counterfeit deceives the borrower. For example, a counterfeit Rembrandt would be sold with the understanding that it is in fact a painting by Rembrandt. In such cases, the buyer is directly a victim since they were deceived about the true nature of the product.
The circumstances described in the article (from the NYT) suggest that the buyers understand that they are not buying products actually produced by the trademark or copyright holders. In this case, they are not victims. They are taking advantage of the opportunity to buy products at prices that are closer to their cost of production and therefore benefit from having access to the unauthorized copies.
The crackdown on these sales will raise prices and hurt consumers in the same way as if China started imposing tariffs on imports. The difference is that the price increases from cracking down on unauthorized copies are likely to be much larger than price increases associated with any plausible increase in tariffs.
The article cites industry sources as saying that the sale of unauthorized items in China cost U.S. corporations $2 billion a year in lost sales. It would have been helpful to include an estimate from an economist of the cost to China’s economy from enforcing U.S. intellectual property claims. It would almost certainly be several times higher.”
Here is another important item from the same Dean Baker, showing how wasteful spending in healthcare is very tightly linked to the current regime of patent monopolies!!
“The NYT reports how medical scans are often inaccurate. It also reports that doctors often profit from referring patients to get scans at facilities where they have an ownership stake.
The problems with scans can be substantially reduced if scans were billed at their marginal cost. The marginal cost of a scan would likely be $100 or less in most cases. It would include the cost of the electricity, the time for the medical personnel to run the scan and the time for a technician/doctor to review the scan.
This situation would require that the cost of developing scanning technology be covered through some other mechanism. It is almost certainly the case that there are more efficient funding mechanisms than the current one of relying on government created patent monopolies.”