Ken,
If the production of knowledge is left to the profit maximizing corporations, then
they probably need something like a patent in order to induce them to do
anything. However, knowledge and information are inappropriate candidates for
commodity status because of the difficulty of enforcing profit rights. As Kenneth
Arrow, among others, has shown, the idea of markets implies some rationality, but
rationality implies that consumers are informed. But to be informed about
information is equivalent to owning that information.
Ken Hanly wrote:
> The model of efficiency and Pareto optimality in
> neo-classical economics within a perfectly free market
> assumes perfect knowledge by participants. If there
> are patents then this condition will not be met. The
> introduction of patents
> is usually justified as producing some type of dynamic
> efficiency rather than
> the efficiency of a static equilibrium. If there were no
> patents it is argued that there would be no incentive to
> develop new processes etc. since everyone would have access
> to that knowledge and the developer would not recoup his or
> her investment -plus a bundle. Some have suggested medals,
> and monetary awards by government etc. for inventions rather
> than privatising this knowledge. Even
> Milton Friedman suggests that the 20 year period of patents
> is too long and
> inefficient.
> Cheers, Ken Hanly
>
> Mine Aysen Doyran wrote:
> >
> > Michael Parelman wrote:
> >
> > > >Today, United States depends on the sale of goods protected >from
> > > >competition by intellectual property rights. Not surprisingly, >three of
> > >
> > > >the four richest people in this country are associated with one >of these
> > >
> > > >companies. Intellectual property rights, however, are >monopolies that
> > > >violate the principles of the free market.
> > >
> >
> > michael, i thought intellectual property rights were central to the
> > principles of the free market. what makes capitalism capitalism is the
> > recognition of property rights as inalienable individual rights, the notion
> > of private possession, so to speak. Am i wrong? i don't see how they
> > constitute a monopoly in the free market or violate the principles of the
> > free market. well, capitalism is a monopoly regime of property owners to
> > begin with. what is equally interesting is that monopoly seems to be
> > intrinsic to capitalism, rather than accidental.
> >
> > there are capitalist regimes without intellectual property rights fully
> > established or somewhat established, like those economies in the periphery
> > or semi periphery of the world system (i.e.., Turkey). they are nonetheless
> > still capitalist by virtue of their integration into the world capitalist
> > system. The state often justifies monopolies on the grounds that they are
> > necessary for achieving economics of scale in order to privilege corporate
> > interests, i.e, private sector monopoly or public sector monopoly.
> >
> > how does this differ in the US? In addition to the "formal freedom" market,
> > is there a monopoly capitalism?
> >
> > > --
> > > >Michael Perelman
> > > >Economics Department
> > > >California State University
> > > >Chico, CA 95929
> > >
> > > >Tel. 530-898-5321
> > > >E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >
> > --
> >
> > Mine Aysen Doyran
> > PhD Student
> > Department of Political Science
> > SUNY at Albany
> > Nelson A. Rockefeller College
> > 135 Western Ave.; Milne 102
> > Albany, NY 12222
--
Michael Perelman
Economics Department
California State University
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Chico, CA 95929
530-898-5321
fax 530-898-5901
