4 ms·
It's arguable that limited monopoly promotes the first innovation. But it should be obvious, it prevents all the possible third party innovations that riff off
by JulianMorrison 11y ago
It's arguable that limited monopoly promotes the first innovation. But it should be obvious, it prevents all the possible third party innovations that riff off the first.
It's easy to miss the dog that didn't bark, or the improvement that couldn't be sold.
- dougabug 11y agoThere's also the question of inequality. Granting monopolies exacerbates inequality, so a hypothetical short term boost to productivity growth might not translate into meaningfully better quality of life for most people. Government engineered barriers to competitive use of specific ideas could undermine the bargaining power of workers, and artificially inflate or support prices of key goods. It seems like an innovation supporting tax would be less restrictive, while still rewarding useful innovations that the market somehow fails to reward.
- mirimir 11y agoIndeed. What comes to mind are farmers who depend on highly tweaked crops to survive, but who are forbidden (or prevented by design) from even saving seeds. Let alone trying to improve the strain.
- mirimir 11y agoThat is an excellent point. The key, then, would be to distinguish and reward such primary innovation. Maybe it's obvious when you see it. Or maybe do some Bates thing with panels of experts.