On Fri, 16 Jun 2000, Jim Devine wrote:
> 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 had in mind IP as "new ways of making/doing things." Specifically,
manufacturing and services/products like software. I suppose the
capitalist claim IP if it is able to demonstrate uniqueness of the product
and process. I am assuming such IP will include spurious claims because
IP is an arrangement to secure rents.
>
> 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.
But technological strength must be seen from the firm's point of view in a
capitalist context.
>
> >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?
lower prices increase demand, such as say DRAM chips. High volume
production (an investment like a billion dollars) ensures lower
costs. Typical economies of scale arguement.
Anthony D'Costa
>
> Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] & http://bellarmine.lmu.edu/~jdevine
> ["clawww" or "liberalarts" can replace "bellarmine"]
>
>
