a very intelligent fellow patent attorney, and we got around to the subject of policy issues. One thing led to another and he discovered, and was a bit shocked by, of the IP system claim the patent system is justified because it stimulates innovation, but they almost never try to really figure out whether the alleged
the letter. (The letter is similar in some ways to the one distributed by the Innovation Alliance , which my company was asked to sign; I refused. Something tells have a few comments on the draft letter. I realize, my comments are normative and policy-oriented, and based on a particular understanding of economics and politics,
depression: “If we’re about to go into a recession and all of a sudden you kill innovation in the country, we might not have a recession. We might have a apparently interesting enough to reply to). Regardless of differing policy views on these matters, we can I am sure agree to be civil, respectful,
assistance to improve the harmonization of patent regimes. In the areas of “innovation and technology” they agreed that they will hold a high-level conference on innovations in health-related industries and a workshop on “best practices in
for driving the medical-patent boom. ‘As a patent lawyer, I have a ton of great, innovative things that I can now protect.’” These guys can see the silver lining in (usually more costly or less effective) “workarounds”. Hey, that leads to more innovation! But not everyone agrees: “”It’s not clear that providing a monopoly over delivery,” said Aaron Kesselheim, a patent attorney and doctor who conducts health policy research at Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston.” It is true that “a 1996
Cato’s new Center for Promotion of Human Rights Launches Innovative Web-based Freedom Programs for World Audience . This includes “six articles to the print media, and organize seminars for students, conferences for policy makers, and much more.” Commendable. But I wonder about use of the term “human
and Say’s Law,” in Hazlitt, ed., The Critics of Keynesian Economics , p. 319: “The policies he advocated were precisely those which almost all governments, including adopted many years before his “General Theory” was published. Keynes was not an innovator and champion of new methods of managing economic affairs. His contribution consisted rather in providing an apparent justification for the policies which were popular with those in power in spite of the fact that all
that flat-rates create a superior, more conducive environment for spurring innovation. On the other, Adam Thierer of TechLiberationFront suggests that network to charge for access, he did tell the House Telecom Committee that government policy could encourage internet providers to make the necessary investment in fiber
words. How could Pilon endorse such a utilitarian, wealth-maximization approach to policy, given his principled, deontological, non-utilitarian, rights-based marketed independently of their role in a larger product (unlike, say, innovations in jet engine design, which often are only valuable as part of a kind of engine), patents may indeed generate incentives for innovation that greatly improve human welfare. That’s an argument for them. Since the
The Verein fur Socialpolitik or Association for Social Policy is a central character in the early chapters of the Hulsmann Mises biography. the government should support or restrain industrial cartels. And the important innovation here came from Friedrich Naumann — an influential leftist social thinker —
What is the Mises Institute?
The Mises Institute is a non-profit organization that exists to promote teaching and research in the Austrian School of economics, individual freedom, honest history, and international peace, in the tradition of Ludwig von Mises and Murray N. Rothbard.
Non-political, non-partisan, and non-PC, we advocate a radical shift in the intellectual climate, away from statism and toward a private property order. We believe that our foundational ideas are of permanent value, and oppose all efforts at compromise, sellout, and amalgamation of these ideas with fashionable political, cultural, and social doctrines inimical to their spirit.