An op-ed in the Christian Science Monitor by economists David K. Levine and Michele Boldrin makes the radical proposal of ending the patent system:
A great deal of applied economic research has tried to answer this question. The short answer is that intellectual property does not increase innovation and creation. Extending IP rights may modestly boost the incentive for innovation, but this positive effect is wiped away by the negative effect of creating monopolies. There is simply no evidence that strengthening patent regimes increases innovation or economic productivity. In fact, some evidence shows that increased protection even decreases innovation. The main finding is that making it easier to get patents increases … patenting!
Sadly, as is the rule in op-eds, the authors allude to the existence of research without citing any actual research.
My view on patents is that certain kinds of patents, notably software patents and business process patents, should be abolished outright. The Patent Office simply doesn’t have the ability to evaluate these patents properly and has amply demonstrated its willingness to patent the software or business process equivalent of the wheelbarrow and, considering the rate of development in both of these areas, it’s not likely that they’ll ever be able to gain enough expertise. An example of this emerged recently when I was browsing through patents related to point-of-sale. I found a half dozen IBM patents claiming rights to things I know personally to have been in use a decade before the date of the patent. They were obvious.
I further believe that the psychology of patents, rooted in a late 18th/early 19th century understanding of the process of creation, is flat wrong and the economics of patents has changed so in 200 years that they certainly should be considered more skeptically. Unfortunately, the opposite seems to be the case.
Ahem….
I posted a link to their book (which you can download in pdf form) here a few weeks back. Levine has a website where much of his research is available and runs the NAJ journal which has loads of “free” articles. You really expected citations in an op-ed article? I guess I’d have to ask, are there other op-eds in the CSM that have citations to research?
Anyhow, Levine’s website is here. Their book Against Intellectual Monopoly is here. Here is the paper that laid out the theoretical arguments. Various research papers in pdf format can be found here.
A citation, no. But a link, a title, or even just saying “our research” would have been nice.
You’ve supplied those. Thank you.
As I noted in the body of the post, I’m skeptical of intellectual property, generally. I think it’s outlived its usefulness. However, it’s still pretty darned useful to those who are earning their livelihoods via artificial scarcity and I have little doubt that they’ll fight to the death to preserve it, cf. the recording industry.
There are numerous errors in Levine and Boldrin’s editorial. For instance, they misinterpret the Constitution. They mischaracterize patents and IP as a monopoly. Their comments on the incentives provided by patents is historically inaccurate. They whine about the cost of the drugs for AIDS, while ignoring the development costs and the fact that without the inventors there would be no AIDS drugs. This is a typical parasite argument. The mistakes and misrepresentations in the editorial are so numerous for supposedly distinguished professors of economics that the only conclusion is that the authors are more interested in pushing a political agenda than finding the truth. For more information see http://hallingblog.com/2009/12/09/levine-boldrin-argue-the-u-s-should-end-the-patent-system/
Dale,
Its a monopoly, legal double speak isn’t going to change that. If I want to produce a widget and you hold the patent, I cannot, even if you do not want to produce it yourself. This is a socail loss no matter how you want to abuse the meaning of words. Your reading of the definition is just simply nonsesnical.
As for the evidence, they have an entire chapter of their book looking at the history of intellectual property laws and their impact on inovation. Your analysis is facil and suggests a poor grasp of history. The picture Levine and Boldrin paint several times is that at first intellectual property laws in an industry is lax, then it is tightened up, and as it progresses innovation declines. You basically put forward a post hoc ergo propter hoc argument.
Right, the bubbles had nothing to do with it? Excuse me while I fall down laughing.
This is just flat out untrue. Boldrin and Levine are in favor of having competition in the area of intellectual “property” as opposed to the almost complete lack of it now. Sure, prices would come down, but so what corporate welfare is usually not a good reason for keeping bad policy.
The basic result in economics is that competition promotes economic growth, innovation and making many goods more affordable over time. Intellectual property laws on the other hand stifle competition.
Interesting side note: in my little end of the IP business — publishing — the rush to own IP by companies which had previously just distributed IP is very much on. New technology makes the dead tree book less valuable almost by the minute. The value of our IP apart from the physical products is as yet undetermined — we have a very fluid market at the moment.
I’ve spent the last two years warning a certain publisher that this day was rapidly approaching and that the revolution would happen with breathtaking suddenness. So I get to play prophet.
Of course I’d rather make profit than be a prophet. (Pause for appreciative laughter.) It looks as if in the very near future the IP creator — in my little market segment — will also be the IP distributor. A fraught moment, full of potential.
I will certainly do everything in my power to maintain control of my product, to make myself the exclusive distributor. And I imagine I would pursue legal avenues against anyone who rips me off and re-sells my product. But my means for enforcing that law will be significantly reduced by going it alone without a major corp behind me.
On the other hand, I may try to go to a sponsorship model or advertiser-supported model, in which case I would actively solicit re-use.
I assume the fruits of Dale B. Halling’s labor are not protected by copyright law. As I understand it, legal filings are not protected as a “right to their writings.”
Yet oddly enough he still makes money, go figure.
Steve, failure to use logic and definitions is not going to change the fact that patents are property rights and not monopolies.
Levine and Boldrin do not want property rights in intellectual property – this means that they are not in favor of people earning a return on their intellectual efforts. Their position is like saying its okay to earn a return on your labor, but not have property rights in your labor. This is commonly called slavery or theft.
Crises are caused by financial bubbles, but long term economic stagnation is due to poor policies – including weak protection of intellectual property. Innovation is the only way to grow real per capita GDP. The evidence is overwhelming that countries with strong patent laws are the most innovative and the richest while those with weak or nonexistent patent laws have almost no innovation and are poor. The evidence is clear. All you have to do is open your eyes.
Actually, lawyers do own rights in their writings that are generally transfered to their clients only upon payment. This is completely consistent with my earlier statements. If lawyers did not own their work, then the client could legally take their work product without paying them. The logical conclusion of Levine and Bouldrin’s position is that you cannot own the product of your thoughts just your labor, so it would not be stealing to sit in on their lectures without paying tuition. In fact a consequence of their position is it is immoral that they charge for their lectures.
Dale,
I am using the definition of a monopoly. Patents and copyrights grant to the owner absolute control over who produces the item. Your bizzare focus on this notion of right of production is specious. Its like hiding behind what is is.
I’ve tried to be polite, but this is an outright lie. Have you read their work or just the op-ed? Their shorter paper that started was the basis for all their follow on work suggested at least one mechanism by which an innovator would benefit from their innovations, the right to first sale. Really, next time try reading their research, I’ve posted the links up above.
The factors related to economic growth are very large. In fact, there is no single variable that can be pointed too with any degree of certainty. So this is a gross over-simplification.
This is most amusing considering your level of ignorance of growth economics. For example, here is a good post by a developmental economist. One of the linked articles at the above links looks at things like corruption, capitalism, democracy, education levels, ethnicity and language, fertility, geography, military expenditures, various taxes, life expectancy, inequality, religion, and so on. Yes, innovation is clearly going to impact growth, but I think it is naive to say it is just growth.
I’m not disputing the facts, I’m questioning the cuasality here. You are saying strong IP laws lead to economic success, I’m wondering if economic success doesn’t lead to strong IP laws.
Considering that you can download their book in pdf form you are probably correct, they’d let you sit in on their lecture. Still that woldn’t get you a grade, a degree or any of the real goals most people who sit in on their lectures are after.
Not at all. You are completely ignorant of their positions. Their position is not that a person who has information to convey cannot charge for it, but that they are not granted monopoly rights. Really, read their work. You’ll look less foolish that way.
“The goal of economic efficiency is that of making us all as well off as possible.”–Boldrin & Levine, Against Intellectual Property Chapter 6, p 148.
Funny that people who are espousing the notion of monopoly for IP are espousing an idea that is complete opposite of the above quote.