32 ms·

To be clear: I'm not saying the current IP system is good. It is evil. But no IP would also be evil. The fact that when prices go down, consumption increases i

To be clear: I'm not saying the current IP system is good. It is evil. But no IP would also be evil. The fact that when prices go down, consumption increases is just basic microeconomics. This is not evidence that removing IP would increase scientific progress or well-being. One way to approach this would be comparing countries that don't/can't enforce IP protection to countries who do. Of course would need to control for a lot of variables and it wouldn't be a perfect predictor, but already better than pure speculation.

TaylorAlexander 5y ago
You’d appreciate this on the ground report from the culture of unauthorized but widespread copying in China. https://www.bunniestudios.com/blog/?p=284 https://www.bunniestudios.com/blog/?p=284
TaylorAlexander 5y ago
> The fact that when prices go down, consumption increases is just basic microeconomics. This is not evidence that removing IP would increase scientific progress or well-being. I think you have misunderstood my intent. I am not saying that increased consumption is evidence that we should eliminate patents. I am saying that reduced price of functional 3D printers is a sign of increased innovation. Actually I saw the innovation first hand in the user groups and mailing lists, and I am using the price as an indicator of what I saw. My point is that we would see more innovation if we eliminated patents and intellectual property restrictions. This would have the effect of lowering prices for things which I think is great, but my point is that patents don’t even do what we are commonly told they do. We are told they increase innovation but in my opinion there was far more innovation in 3D printing once the patents expired. And it’s no surprise. The only thing a patent actually does is restrict innovation. That is the single function of a patent. The story we are told is that by allowing a government decree to issue monopolies on ideas, there will be more profit in new ideas, leading to a net increase in innovation. But in my opinion this process so significantly restricts follow on innovation that the whole thing ends up being quite counter productive.

TaylorAlexander 5y ago

You’d appreciate this on the ground report from the culture of unauthorized but widespread copying in China. https://www.bunniestudios.com/blog/?p=284 https://www.bunniestudios.com/blog/?p=284

TaylorAlexander 5y ago

> The fact that when prices go down, consumption increases is just basic microeconomics. This is not evidence that removing IP would increase scientific progress or well-being. I think you have misunderstood my intent. I am not saying that increased consumption is evidence that we should eliminate patents. I am saying that reduced price of functional 3D printers is a sign of increased innovation. Actually I saw the innovation first hand in the user groups and mailing lists, and I am using the price as an indicator of what I saw. My point is that we would see more innovation if we eliminated patents and intellectual property restrictions. This would have the effect of lowering prices for things which I think is great, but my point is that patents don’t even do what we are commonly told they do. We are told they increase innovation but in my opinion there was far more innovation in 3D printing once the patents expired. And it’s no surprise. The only thing a patent actually does is restrict innovation. That is the single function of a patent. The story we are told is that by allowing a government decree to issue monopolies on ideas, there will be more profit in new ideas, leading to a net increase in innovation. But in my opinion this process so significantly restricts follow on innovation that the whole thing ends up being quite counter productive.