grow.” In fact, there is quite a bit of doubt. The Founders had no proof that any innovation gains from a patent system would outweigh its undeniable costs; they had innovation. As they write: “it seems unlikely that patents today are an effective policy instrument to encourage innovation overall” (James Bessen & Michael J. Meurer,
of the intellectual property (IP) marketplace in ways that will hamper the innovation and commercialization of new technologies.” Such a conclusion can be example of how support for IP can lead to a confused analysis of the state and policy. For example, the support of patents has led some libertarians, including
745-54, 1133-38, 1181-86 Hayek: see Tucker, “ Misesian vs. Marxian vs. IP Views of Innovation “; Tucker, “ Hayek on Patents and Copyrights “; Salerno, Hayek Contra and Levine’s Against Intellectual Monopoly ) “Does Intellectual Monopoly Help Innovation” (with Levine) “ Intellectual Property and the Incentive Fallacy ,” by the Common Good (draft) ———, The Great Debate on Intellectual Property, in Cato Policy Report (January/February 2002) Kevin Carson, Intellectual Property — A
Take on Net Neutrality ; see also Harvard’s Yochai Benkler on Net Neutrality and Innovation ; other posts on net neutrality. Bottom line: the idea that the state gives these companies extra-market power in the first place by various state policies and laws such as FCC regulation of communications, IP law, and other policies; and that the state is the biggest threat to Internet freedom; of late it’s
over-issue; — said of currency.” And so on from there until 2003. “This semantic innovation is by no means harmless,” Mises wrote in Planning for Freedom . Mises to this analysis is bothersome, besides being ineffective. “As you cannot name the policy increasing the quantity of the circulating medium, it goes on luxuriantly,”
not take anything away from people that they would otherwise have had absent the innovation by the patentee. Quite often someone has already invented what you patent, cannot be absolute, but must be weakened and tempered by considerations of “public policy.” 3 And yet, if we analyze the problem in terms of property rights we will see
reworked democratically for administration by a state bureaucracy to advance a policy goal of encouraging innovation, disclosure, and artistic creation. It had nothing to do with natural
Labor Center activities, to evaluate proposals for course offerings and teaching innovations developed by Labor Center instructors, and to suggest and discuss defective races and classes in a country’s labor market. His work also has clear policy implications: specifically, programs of systematic removal from the superior
Neutrality Developments ; see also Harvard’s Yochai Benkler on Net Neutrality and Innovation .)) As discussed by Internet lawyer Evan Brown, ((See his post ISP’s to include “terms of use” violations and breaches of workplace computer-use policies. Breaching an agreement or ignoring your boss might be bad. But should it be
Mason Law & Economics Research Paper No. 11-27; forthcoming in Competition Policy and Patent Law Under Uncertainty: Regulating Innovation , Geoffrey A. Manne, Joshua D. Wright, eds., Cambridge University Press,
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.