2 ms·
Intellectual property didn't used to be rent seeking. It's a relatively recent phenomenon where you can no longer buy-to-own, you can only subscribe-to-use. Vi
by umvi 7y ago
Intellectual property didn't used to be rent seeking. It's a relatively recent phenomenon where you can no longer buy-to-own, you can only subscribe-to-use.
Virtually every company is moving toward this model - Microsoft, Adobe, Disney, etc. That's my main complaint.
- netcan 7y agoDepends on what you mean by "rent seeking." Liberal economists use this term the most, they usually mean large companies trying to get goodies from the state. Lefty ones tend to mean something like "profiteering." X-as-a-service businesses models aren't exactly new in intellectual property. The patent/copyright systems explicitly assume licensing and royalties. But, I agree that subscriptions are pretty new in consumer-land. But we need a different term rent seeking already has competing usages.
- prepend 7y agoRent seeking [0] typically means exploiting a captive market without providing value. I don’t think that fits either of your definitions. The key piece is they basically squeeze without proving value. So buying IP and then upping the rent fits that. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rent-seeking https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rent-seeking
- rhizome 7y ago>they usually mean large companies trying to get goodies from the state I think here you might be thinking of Regulatory Capture. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regulatory_capture https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regulatory_capture
- klarstrup 7y agoProperty(intellectual and otherwise) enforcement _is_ a goody from the state, by the by
- CPLX 7y ago> Liberal economists use this term the most, they usually mean large companies trying to get goodies from the state. No, they don’t. That is neither a correct nor common use of the term.