3 ms·
A common argument, and yet not 9ne based on empirical data. The idea that not having intellectual monopolies would reduce investment over the long term simply f
by djbebs 5y ago
A common argument, and yet not 9ne based on empirical data. The idea that not having intellectual monopolies would reduce investment over the long term simply fails to show any evidence for it.
Furthermore the arguments used for it, can also be used in regards to any investment with high costs and ease of replicability. Even something as simple as a rice farm would be able to justify a monopoly over selling rice in a region in that manner, after all, it's a lot cheaper to simply import it from elsewhere once the market demand for it has been established by the farm.
- HPsquared 5y agoSome things can't be tested empirically [0] and we must rely on our reasoning faculties, that's life. I'm saying, for some investors (I did say a significant portion, perhaps the quantity can't be verified), IP ownership is a factor in their decision making. Are you saying it doesn't for anyone? It's a different thing to argue that the "aggregate" level of investment across the whole economy would be unchanged. That's a different issue, and anyway the nature of any investment would be affected by changes in the law. On the second point yes, the argument can be extended to absurdity but the scope of the patent system is a judgement made by legislators, which should (absent corruption) be based on a judgement of its relative benefits/disbenefits. [0] Parachute use to prevent death and major trauma when jumping from aircraft: randomized controlled trial https://www.bmj.com/content/363/bmj.k5094 https://www.bmj.com/content/363/bmj.k5094