Via:
“(David) Levine and (Michele) Boldrin have a new editorial up in the CSMonitor, explaining why they think the patent system should be abolished.”
An excerpt with the key argument(s):
“As a matter of theory, intellectual property is a double-edged sword. On the one hand, giving a reward increases the incentive to innovate. On the other, allowing the monopolization of existing ideas taxes the creation of new ones, thereby decreasing the incentive to innovate. The bottom line: Contrary to widespread belief, economic theory does not provide support for the continuous extension of IP. The only answer to the question of whether IP serves the desired purpose must be empirical. Does it work in practice?
A great deal of applied economic research has tried to answer this question. The short answer is that intellectual property does not increase innovation and creation. Extending IP rights may modestly boost the incentive for innovation, but this positive effect is wiped away by the negative effect of creating monopolies. There is simply no evidence that strengthening patent regimes increases innovation or economic productivity. In fact, some evidence shows that increased protection even decreases innovation. The main finding is that making it easier to get patents increases … patenting!”
IP doesn’t increase incentives to innovate, IP increases incentives to invest.
A really big and really important distinction – that investors (or more accurately, “the invested”) would like to deliberately obscure… to make it look as though they are a vital part of the creative process… which often they are, but not at the (root) level they’re claiming…
… and not at a level where granting them monopolies over knowledge creates a net value for the wider system. It’s damaging. It’s not burning our books so future generations miss out, it’s parking our arses on them so THIS generation misses out. Sure we need investment – but we need a means of providing incentive such that we’re clogging our innovation-systems with legal goo.
If these are the key arguments…they are in trouble. The movement to abolish IP is based on conjecture and ignorance. Maybe a comparison of innovation in different countries would serve them well. Compare the innovation levels in the United States (historically strong IP protection)with socialist and communist countries where there is little, if any, protection of IP. These countries are experts at stealing IP, but not developing it.