Members with This Book
Newest Reviews
see all reviews-
“Chapter 1, and so far so good. Pretty much what I was expecting, the authors expand on a paper submitted in 2003. As the authors point out, "Since there is no evidence that intellectual monopoly achieves the desired purpose of increasing innovation and creation, it has no benefits. So there is no need for society to balance the benefits against the costs. This leads us to our final conclusion: intellectual property is an unnecessary evil."
Bry wrote this review Monday, May 18 2009. ( reply | permalink ) Was this review helpful? Yes | No
Whilst allowing inventors to capture economic rent by enforcing monopolistic behaviours, society as a whole loses out. Using James Watt's steam engine as an example, the authors illustrate how the industrial revolution was delayed by upwards of 16 years owing to legal wrangling by Watt et al. (Whether that delay was good or bad, I'll leave for another day.)”
1 of 1 members found this review helpful“Book by two economists, making an economic case against patents and copyrights, but aimed at the general reader Available free online.
TheophileEscargot wrote this review Thursday, October 2 2008. ( reply | permalink ) Was this review helpful? Yes | No
While I've seen a fair amount of evidence that current IP laws are too expensive, this is the first time I've seen a plausible economic case that copyright and patents should be abolished completely.
The basic theory behind intellectual property law is that it has a cost and a benefit. The benefit is that is an incentive to create new works and ideas. The cost is that these items literally cost more to the consumer, since he can only buy from a monopoly provider. If the overall benefit outweighs the overall cost, then the law is a good idea.
The book adds more complexity to this theoretical picture. Since inventions build on other inventions, patent laws can actually stifle innovation, as you cannot so easily build on or improve someone else's work. Even without laws, first mover advantage still gives an incentive to innovate. These factors change the balance somewhat. Boldrin and Levine admit that if patent and copyright laws are abolished original creators will suffer somewhat, but that this will be outweighed by the greater good.
If that argument was purely theoretical, it would be worthless. But the fascinating thing about this book is that they find a great deal of empirical evidence that this is true.
They look at cases like the repeated extensions of copyright terms in the last hundred years. If copyright laws really do give creators incentives to produce, they should have caused the number of works published to jump. In reality, no such thing happens. Conversely, they do show that the price of copyrighted works is much higher, by analysing in- and out-of-copyright books by the same author.
They also look at chemical industry patents from the early Twentieth century when the UK and US had patents and Germany did not: Germany dominated innovation. They compare the rush of innovation from before software could be patented, with the slower progress afterwards.
The bulk of the book is taken up with real-world evidence from a variety of situations, from the invention of the steam engine to the present. Even if some of the examples seem a little weak, the weight of evidence seems overwhelming.
The book's clearly written, though the tone gets a bit bombastic sometimes. Doesn't require any specialist knowledge. Well worth reading if you have any interest in the subject.”
Displaying 1-2 of 2
