First of all, I want to thank everybody who has responded to this. It has been very
useful to me.
There are enormous differences in the rate at which IP information dissipates.
Copyrights now last 70 years. Patents, 20. Patents used to be given for processes
in the production of chemicals, now they are given for the compounds.
Anthony D'Costa wrote:
> IP can raise the profit rate, complementing the weakness of labor. But
> what is IP? It is an institutional arrangement to appropriate
> "knowledge" for capitalists' gain. IP is directly related to
> technological change, a process which in cumulative fashion pushes for
> more IP. The reason is competition is built on technological strength and
> the ability to postpone the widespread diffusion of it (for the
> monopolist). However, knowledge does diffuse, so monopoly control is
> essentially temporary. Hence the greater stress on IP in the context of
> intense technogy-led competition. This is the supply side of the story
> only. I presume with relative price declines
> (technology-induced) realization is made less insecure. It is thus a
> dialectical process between competition and monopoly that is inherent in
> capitalist dynamics.
>
> Cheers,
>
> xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Anthony P. D'Costa, Associate Professor
> Comparative International Development
> University of Washington Taylor Institute & South Asia Program
> 1900 Commerce Street Jackson School of International Studies
> Tacoma, WA 98402, USA University of Washington, Seattle
>
> Phone: (253) 692-4462
> Fax : (253) 692-5612
> xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>
> On Thu, 15 Jun 2000, Doug Henwood wrote:
>
> > Michael Perelman wrote:
> >
> > >Let me start out by saying that I have no doubt that intellectual property
> > >increases surplus value, just as if the entire economy consisted of
> > >a region, such
> > >as San Francisco, which experienced a rapid increase in rents, surplus value
> > >increased relative to what goes to labor.
> > >
> > >Doug asks for proof. I cannot give it. To begin with, Doug has a much better
> > >command of data than I do. To make matters worse, data is not
> > >collected about such
> > >matters.
> >
> > Michael, I don't understand how you can be sure of something you not
> > only can't prove, but for which you can't offer much nonconclusive
> > evidence. Why you so convinced? Are you pushing the IP analysis as an
> > antidote to something else? Given the unambiguous weakening of labor
> > over the last 25 years, you almost don't need any other explanations
> > for the increase in the US profit rate.
> >
> > Doug
> >
> >
--
Michael Perelman
Economics Department
California State University
Chico, CA 95929
Tel. 530-898-5321
E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
