el incentivo proporcionado por la legislación de propiedad intelectual estimula la innovación y la creatividad adicionales ni siquiera ha sido probado. Es totalmente Creationism » (discurso, 2008); « Yet Another Study Finds Patents Do Not Encourage Innovation » (colección de estudios que concluyen que la P.I. no cumple sus Philosophy of Property Rights and Ideal Objects », Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy 13, no. 3 (verano de 1990), de Tom Palmer (un excelente caso de principios
It’s a commonplace that Americans and Westerners are the technical and business innovators, and that Chinese are good at imitation. But sometimes it’s the reverse. I recently learned of a Chinese tax policy that I fear the IRS may want to emulate someday (if they are not already--I’m
and Technology Law Review challenges the traditional view that patents foster innovation, suggesting instead that patents may harm new technology, economic activity, and societal wealth. These results may have important policy implications because many countries count on patent systems to spur new
even libertarian or free marketeers—advocating taxpayer-funded “medical innovation prizes” to supplement or replace the current patent system—e.g., Alex started . Perhaps a progressive-libertarian alliance can force economists/policy makers to take this issue seriously. I think you’ve got the conversation
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,
From How Judges, Bureaucrats and Lawyers Put Innovators at Risk In “ Patent Failure; How Judges, Bureaucrats, and Lawyers Put is in the details. The authors readily admit that “In presenting this list of policy ideas, we admit that we really do not know what it will take to substantially improve patent notice. These policy reforms move us in the direction of an effective patent system, but we do not
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,
is often trotted out as a classic case showing the importance of having the innovation-incentives of a patent system in place. The following post from Greg the history, which has been pretty well laid out by William Kingston (Research Policy 29 (2000): 679-710) and Peter Neushul (Journal of the History of Medicine and
patent oligopolists. While some confused souls argue that patents create jobs and innovation and can even stimulate the economy, more and more people have begun to economy. If you are interested in learning about the current direction of patent policy.
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.