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,
goods but, instead, primarily for obtaining licensing fees . See FTC, To Promote Innovation: The Proper Balance of Competition and Patent Law and Policy , ch. 3, pp. 38–39 (Oct. 2003) .... For these firms, an injunction , and the
less principled, utilitarian reasons. They take a wealth-maximization approach to policy making. They favor patent and copyright law because they believe that it generates net wealth — that the value of the innovation stimulated by IP law is significantly greater than the costs of these
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
free, all-day celebration of the doctrine of fair use: the legal right that allows innovators and creators to make particular uses of copyrighted materials. WFUD will group. PK works to ensure that communications and intellectual property policies encourage creativity, further free expression and discourse and provide , which appears to be generally IP-skeptical (”Our first priority is promote innovation and the rights of consumers, while working to stop any bad legislation
the same parasites who do everything they can to hobble and destroy business and innovation–they impose costly regulations; tax individuals, making employees more the money supply and cause destructive business cycles; impose insane, murderous policies on pharmaceutical and medical innovations via the FDA; and then impose
Defenders of patents commonly say they are against innovators‘ ideas being “stolen” or “plagiarized.” This implies that patents simply incoherent grounds like utilitarianism). This is one of the aspects of arguing IP policy that infuriates me. Whenever you point one of these things out to a system--a change that would be attacked by mainstream IP advocates as “harming innovation,” in the same way that these libertarian patenteers criticize us patent
the utilitarian perspective itself is bad enough, because all sorts of terrible policies could be justified this way: why not take half of Bill Gates’s fortune and Intellectual Property , pp. 19–23.) They merely assume it does and then base their policy views on this assumption. It is beyond dispute that the IP system imposes However, the argument that the incentive provided by IP law stimulates additional innovation and creativity has not even been proven. It is entirely possible — even
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
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.