Loading...
Hit search button!

Top Sellers

Economics in One Lesson
Price: $12.00 USD

Add Economics in One Lesson to Cart

Anatomy of the State
Price: $5.00 USD

Add Anatomy of the State to Cart

Mises Silver Coin
Price: $32.50 USD

Add Mises Silver Coin to Cart

Printed Catalog
Price: $0.00 USD

Add Printed Catalog to Cart

The Law
Price: $6.00 USD

Add The Law to Cart

Loading Mises Store Google Search...
Home  >  All Books
Against Intellectual Monopoly
Other products by Boldrin, Michele and Levine, David K.
reviews
Item #: B914
Reg. Price: $30.00 USD
Our Price: $27.00 USD
Quantity:
More
Less
 
Add to Wishlist Add to Cart

Description 

Rarely does a book come along that prompts a wholesale revision in the way we perceive laws and legislation, social progress, and the very foundations of development economics. This is one such book, and it is destined to be a classic in the economics literature. What's more, the authors' thesis suggests a much-needed revision in classical liberal theory and even the proper conception of the competitive process.

Michele Boldrin and David Levine are asking us to rethink everything we believe about copyright and patent. The authors argue that neither are part of the free market order. They are the product of positive law, a modern invention of the state, and one that is the enemy of technological progress. They amount to special grants of privilege to market winners to coerce others and prolong the period of winnings that derive from being the first to market.

The authors argue that intellectual property is the wrong phrase. They want to use the term monopoly, and examine the institution the same way all monopolies are examined in economic literature.

In fact, they say that copyright and patents need to be completely scrapped. That sounds shocking but the author's arguments are incredibly convincing. No matter what objection occurs to you immediately—this would ruin incentives for creation, be unjust, violate contracts, wreck profits, introduce chaos—they refute it with patience, logic, and massive amounts of evidence.

They don't only deal in theory. They examine the history and workings of these institutions, from the Industrial Revolution to the present. They show that anywhere copyright and patent have been applied, the result has been stagnation in that industry. This applies to the steam engine, the cotton gin, and the airplane. More recently, the problem of intellectual property stagnation has afflicted music, movies, books, and the internet at large.

They point to dynamic industries like fashion and architecture to show that IP is not necessary for creation or profitability or development. In fact, the belief in IP, they say, is rooted in confusion over the nature of the competitive process itself.

Competition and progress are everywhere based not only on rivalry but also on the ideas of emulation and imitation—institutions that are made illegal by patents and copyrights. There are no such things as lone creators who perfect a product the first time around in a market economy. Making technology come to life in a real market environment requires many rounds of experimentation with methods, manufacturing, and marketing. Shutting down that process—this is what patents and copyrights do—results in stagnation.

Their examples are immense. They show how IP in literature has been a disaster for writers of literature. The books that are unprotected have made the largest dent in the culture while copyright has been responsible for dooming certain authors to unjust obscurity. The same is true in music. They show that many of the great innovations in modern times are products of an open-source world: capitalists using public domain material to create great products and art, and then tragically resorting to the state to freeze history.

They further revise the history of IP to show that it is a modern invention of the state. Its present form is only decades old, and is the product of the largest market players shutting down the market process in order to reward themselves at others' expense.

The implications of this work are astonishing to consider. If they are right, the costs to civilization of intellectual monopoly are frightening to contemplate. It suggests a radical policy agenda for anyone who believes in freedom: the entire apparatus of copyright and patent needs to be thrown out completely. Not just reformed. Abolished.

There is so much to learn from this book. We can only recommend that you read it slowly and let their argument sink in. Ideas this dramatic and radical—and this thoroughly argued—don't come along very often. It takes time to deal with it intellectually.

Even if you think that patents and copyrights are wholly legitimate, you must read this book, if only to grapple with what the substantive opposition consists of. And if you think you don't care about this topic, beware: it is one of the most important areas of statecraft that young people do care about. Sooner or later, our society is going to have to deal head on with this area of law. It is incumbent on defenders of a free society to examine their position.

Another warning: this book shatters myths on nearly every page. Most of what we think on this subject is not true; much of what is actually true is not part of the street wisdom.

All credit goes to the authors here—Michele Boldrin and David Levine of the Washington University in St. Louis—who have undertaken this daring and challenging area of research. They are exemplars of intellectual pioneers. If they have an effect in changing the way people think on this subject, civilization will owe them a huge debt.

The table of contents is as follows:

  • Chapter 1: Introduction
  • Chapter 2: Creation Under Competition
  • Chapter 3: Innovation Under Competition
  • Chapter 4: The Evil of Intellectual Monopoly
  • Chapter 5: The Devil in Disney
  • Chapter 6: How Competition Works
  • Chapter 7: Defenses of Intellectual Monopoly
  • Chapter 8: Does Intellectual Monopoly Increase Innovation?
  • Chapter 9: The Pharmaceutical Industry
  • Chapter 10: The Bad, the Good, and the Ugly

Again, there is more at stake here than seen at first glance. Everyone who seeks to be conversant and knowledgeable in the workings of society, in whatever field in which you work, has a high stake in the outcome of this debate. This is the book that frames it all up and shows the way forward.

312 pages, Hardcover 2008, ISBN: 978-0521879286

Reviews

Average Rating: (based on 7 reviews)

Showing 1 - 5 of 7 Reviews:

by Fred Furash
on 5/28/2009
So far, excellent book
I'm still reading the book, but I was surprised at the amount of negative reviews by people who, I imagine, have not even read the book. This book quotes an amazing array of empirical evidence that is conveniently left out of any mainstream treatment of the subject of intellectual property. The common objection it seems, is that this book has to be paid for.... no it doesn't! This book is available for free, online, and legally. The authors have placed this book online for free while also selling it the usual way. Hell, they even detail how a profit can be made for copyright-less works even if exact copies are available for free on the internet, it's in the second chapter! It's also worth mentioning, that the authors are in no way against remuneration for originators of ideas, music, books, etc. but they show quite well how this can, has, and does today occur without the use of copyrights and patents. Should my opinion of the book change when I have read more of it, I will post again.
by Casey Worthington
on 4/24/2009
"Rand_Ayn" and "Writers & Inventors" didn't read the book...
The other positive reviews here, as well as Jeff Tucker's review on the Mises Blog, are spot on.  This book changes your perception of everything related to "intellectual property" - if you actually read it.  So, at risk of legitimizing two reviews barely even written in English by authors who clearly didn't even read the introduction, I'll respond.

The authors never ONCE endorse "giving inventions away for free."  Not once do they endorse giving ANYTHING away for free.  Anyone who writes a review purporting that this book advocates some sort of socialistic "work for the greater good" bullshit clearly hasn't even read the first chapter.  Copies of ideas are not free, nor is it very easy to copy ideas in the first place.  Anyone who's paid thousands of dollars to attend college - and be taught OLD ideas - can understand the time and effort required to "imitate" an invention.  Or who's paid consultants, doctors, and lawyers...

Those 2 reviews make no sense in the context of this book.
by Writers & Inventors
on 3/27/2009
why charge for the book?
attribution and ownership are indeed different concepts; but, ultimately there can be no equity in a society without objective, transparent relationships between rights and responsibilities. this book does not explain what is wrong with property as a bundle of rights and yet without royals issuing letters patent, the US has created more jobs than any other nation in history. not because people had a street-corner-performer-donation mentality but because fences make good neighbors. second, there is no empirical evidence to support the arguments. you can always offer your "property" for free: alas, this book is not free. it ain't even "steal this book" free! it is bewildering to think that the authors ignore key debates leading to the original Patent Act & the fact the Founders recognized only two forms of employment in the Constitution - Writers & Inventors. why? the States had ALREADY begun to issue patents (originalists who ignore the 13th, 14th & 15th Amend- conveniently ignore).  
by Lucas
on 2/7/2009
Interesting book...
I think that there is a great confusion surrounding the topic of "intellectual property". In particular, two authors of preceding reviews seem to have missed the point.
This book does not tackle the question of whether authors deserve credit for their work. Attribution and ownership are two completely different things. Einstein certainly did invent relativity theory, but is he the "owner" of it, entitled to control every use of it? Not really. Not even under current legal system.
The book neither discusses whether "intellectual property" is a real form of property, since it takes for granted that it's not -- it's a kind of state-granted monopoly, a view not so very uncommon in the past. As it is not a true form of property then the seventh commandment has nothing to do with it. The problem of sponsoring authors, however, remains.
I think it has been quite conclusively demonstrated by Kinsella that it's not possible to view "intellectual property" as an extension of real property rights without coming to absurd conclusions or violating physical property rights of others. Copyrights and patents are monopolies. Whether these monopolies may be beneficial is obviously a different question. A true hard-line libertarian would say "No, all monopolies are bad." This seems to be the main thesis of the book.
The book tries to disprove the economic theory of ideas being "public goods" subject to "free-riding" by others, which theory is the basis for granting limited exclusive rights in certain ideas, or just their literary expressions. According to the authors abstract ideas maybe are public goods, but they have no economic value, only their well-understood "copies" in one's own mind are what matters. Joining this theory with some real-world examples they conclude that ordinary market forces suffice to assure that authors get paid and the public receives the fruit of their work, so monopolies are unnecessary.
Personally, I don't think I'm competent enough to criticize the factual accuracy of the data they provide or the theory behind it. If the data is correct then it gives some arguments against intellectual monopolies, even should their theory be false. 
One thing that could be done is to provide more data. The examples in the book pertain to rather exotic fields, which not necessarily generalize to more common ones. This is not due to intentional selectiveness by the authors, but to the fact that most "ordinary creations" have been "protected" for quite a long time. But if one digs really deep it is possible to find places on Earth where it wasn't true for some time. For instance, after Poland got liberated from communism in 1989 it immediately launched fully capitalist free-market economy. However, it introduced copyrights on software only in 1994, so for about 4 years the (embrional at that time) software industry in Poland functioned without _any_ kind of legal protection. Again, I'm not very competent in this matter, so this example may be inappropriate due to its specificity or short duration, but it would be interesting anyway if someone analyzed this or similar cases.
My personal opinion is that current legal mechanisms behind "intellectual property" are far too restrictive and, in their current form, don't really benefit society. It would be great if they could be abolished altogether or just substantially diminished. To what extent this is possible, however, is a matter of further research. This and similar voices against intellectual monopoly are only the beginning of a hopefully fruitful debate.
by Ray Whitmer
on 2/6/2009
The book is dead dn, exactly what people need to understand about so-called intellectual property
It is a very good book and a sound position, as far as I am concerned, and well developed. The author seems to stand behind the concept as the text of his book has been made freely available: http://www.dklevine.com/general/intellectual/againstfinal.htm. I have only skimmed it. As soon as I reread, I may send a donation. There has to be a more-moral way to fund work that does less harm than the current regime of intellectual monopoly administered by lawyers. It will take future moral leaders, not today's corrupt powerbrokers, to find it.

I have been very involved with open source software and using it as an example is dead on. Detractors who want to call it socialism need to show where the illegal coercion is occuring, as occurs with various forms of socialism including intellectual monopoly grants. Yes, there are still problems with funding that need to be overcome, but it can be done, can be improved, and has to be better than the alternative.

One of the best take-aways from the book is the name itself. We should start referring to these government-granted monopolies as what they are, monopolies resulting from inherently-corrupt legal wrangling, not property in any real or deserved sense of the word.
12
Review and Rate this Item

Related Products


Against Intellectual Property
$6.00 USD
Add to Cart



Anarchy and the Law
$38.00 USD
Add to Cart



Ethics of Liberty, The
$18.00 USD
Add to Cart



Email A Friend

Send this product to a friend...