2 ms·
Economists classify goods as being either rivalrous or non-rivalrous, and either excludable or non-excludable. The ownership of IP is, in a sense, a private go
by wisty 15y ago
Economists classify goods as being either rivalrous or non-rivalrous, and either excludable or non-excludable.
The ownership of IP is, in a sense, a private good (excludable and rivalrous), just like a car. Take patents - can buy and sell them, they're hard to steal, and only one person can have it.
However, the right to use (not own) IP is not a private good. While the original copyright or patent may be unique (therefore rivalrous) and easy to defend (thus excludable), expressions of it are not.
Non-excludable, non-rivalrous goods (the right to use IP) are a little harder to reason about.
- ktizo 15y agoCars are excludable and rivalrous property based on the fact they are physical objects that are of a size easy to possess and it is very hard in physical terms for them to not be so. Patents, on the other hand, are excludable and rivalrous only in the tautological sense. They are defined within law as excludable and rivalrous, so therefore they are excludable and rivalrous. Patents could be redefined in numerous ways that are not excludable and rivalrous, such as including anyone else who can give reasonable proof that they came up with the idea at the same time or independently. Also, it would not be that great a stretch to limit their transferability, so that they cannot be treated as a normal asset.
- wisty 15y ago> Patents, on the other hand, are excludable and rivalrous only in the tautological sense Yes, and it's really easy to con people with the tautological definition. "Of course IP is just property. You can buy it, and sell it, just like a car". By the same argument, piracy is not theft but license infringement. The whole thing is so abstract, it's easy for people to muddy the waters.