3 ms·
There's an interesting mini-thread (3 tweets) from Dean Baker reframing patents as public debt: https://twitter.com/DeanBaker13/status/1212394251872399361 http
by barrkel 7y ago
There's an interesting mini-thread (3 tweets) from Dean Baker reframing patents as public debt:
https://twitter.com/DeanBaker13/status/1212394251872399361 https://twitter.com/DeanBaker13/status/1212394251872399361
The core idea is that government monopolies are an incentive from the government to get something done. Instead of paying companies directly, a monopoly is granted; the monopoly rents, i.e. the higher prices from reduced competition, are then foisted on the public to pay off over the duration of the patent. Structurally, this is like a debt with repayments over time.
- lonelappde 7y agoThat's... what the Constitution says.
- barrkel 7y agoThe constitution of the US doesn't say that patents are public debt.
- michaelt 7y agoThere are several differences: Firstly, the government doesn't choose what it pays to have done. Cancer cure? Patentable. Slide-to-unlock? Patentable. Dildo harness? Also patentable. Second, with patents if development fails the government pays nothing. Whereas if they funded development directly, failed projects would be paid for by the taxpayer. Third, patents are a flat tax on people who use a development, whereas direct development is a progressive tax on people whether they use the development or not. Fourth, patents can pull money from foreign countries into your country.
- barrkel 7y agoThere are other mechanisms, e.g. prizes, that don't have the same downsides as patents that could work better for medical innovations in particular.