Anthony wrote:
> 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).
Michael Perelman's main example of IP (or at least the one he emphasized)
was Nike's branding. He also referred to IP in music (on CDs), videos, and
software. Except for the last, there's no obvious connection between IP and
"technological strength." Even on the last, is Windows 2000 (which is IP)
technologically superior to Linux (which is not)? In a lot of ways, Windows
is a marketing device, a method of taking over the market (as Judge Jackson
saw), rather than a technological improvement. Even its technological side
doesn't seem that hot. With every version, Windows takes up more and more
hard-disk space and memory. Without _real_ technological change in the form
of improved hard disks and memory chips, Windows would be nothing.
I guess one could refer to the patenting of natural processes as an example
of IP as technological strength. But that's technological strength only
from the perspective of the capitalist firm.
>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.
why less insecure?
Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] & http://bellarmine.lmu.edu/~jdevine
["clawww" or "liberalarts" can replace "bellarmine"]
