Slashdot Mirror
Greenspan Examines the Economics of IP
lilgerry writes "Alan Greenspan is asking some tough questions about the correct balance between rewarding innovators and inhibiting follow-on innovators. There's not many answers here, but there's a hint that there could be some clear economic thinking coming to be added to the discussion. Several good questions raised, and in very precise terms that should get papers published on these topics for years to come."
Alan Greenspan is asking some tough questions about the correct balance between rewarding innovators and inhibiting follow-on innovators
What balance? Doesn't rewarding innovators with a patent naturally inhibit follow-on innovators?
From the speech: How appropriate is our current system--developed for a world in which physical assets predominated--for an economy in which value increasingly is embodied in ideas rather than tangible capital?
Can't wait to see what they come up with at the conference. We've been saying the patent system needs an overhaul, wonder if they'll reach the same conclusions we've reached here.
-- If god wanted me to have a sig, he'd have given me a sense of humor.
This article is very relevant to this discussion: http://www.eff.org/IP//against_ip.article
Test 1 2 3 4
Ok, thats a very good point. Thanks.
It's Christmas everyday with BitTorrent.
Neutrinos were originally theorized to explain a reaction which had to produce an extra particle with no mass (but with its other properties such as spin non-zero). I believe it was something along the lines of a particle decaying into other particles with the sum of the masses of the non-neutrino particles being equal to the mass of the original particle. However, it would seem that since neutrinos have mass, the other particles didn't sum to the total mass, it just seemed that way due to the inaccuracy of our measurements. You could say that the neutrino was assumed to have zero mass because of an underflow error.
I hope I've made all of that accurate enough to satisfy the people who are better informed on physics than I am. I'm just a math student.
My only political goal is to see to it that no political party achieves its goals.
An interesting point was made about intellectual property rights in the health care industry (patents on medicine). Some here have argued that IP in the hands of corporations cause those in dire needs, such as AIDS patients, to go helpless. Others here argue that without intellectual property rights in the health care industry, nothing will ever get done.
It is important for everyone to realize in health care markets, governments should fund most if not all research; in the health care market, intellectual property suffers from market failure and inefficient allocation of goods.
In markets dealing with physical goods, such as a potato, goods are allocated efficiently because people who need those particular goods recieve them at the right price; that is, the demand for such good will be met by the supply for such good. Following this logic, if there is a market for, say bottled beef, those demanding the good will be supplied. Markets that allocate physical goods TEST such products to determine if they are useful and needed by society. Bottled beef would clearly fail the market test because people demanding bottled beef would be little to none, and the cost to supply such good would be greater than the benefit users or society derives. Markets that allocate physical goods act as a testing mechanism, determining whether society needs a particular good.
Intellectual property in the health care industry, particularly patents on drugs, does not need such testing mechanism because EVERYONE deems physical health necessary. A patent on AIDS drugs unnecessarily excludes those that can't pay for such drugs. Hence, intellectual property in the health care industry suffers one of the greatest market failures because everyone that needs drugs cannot recieve them. In this sense, health care, like national security, is a public good. Governments should find ways to provide health care to everyone universally, NOT exclude them ineffciently.