tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6598831864333990375.post7974020446421441211..comments2023-05-08T04:01:34.561-08:00Comments on Students Who Enjoy Economic Thinking: Taxation via the MarketAdam Levyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15257124483756325652noreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6598831864333990375.post-51388004535631382512011-11-21T13:46:06.031-09:002011-11-21T13:46:06.031-09:00I have always had trouble with the 'incentive ...I have always had trouble with the 'incentive for innovation' argument. Certainly an innovator will act in a more aggressive manner if they are certain of the potential for profit. However, this argument requires two assumptions I cannot condone: 1- There is an inherent need for rapid innovation, 2- the individual who holds the patent deserves all the credit. It can certainly be said that copyright law can limit innovation and competition. I believe Microsoft is somewhat notorious for spending large amounts on research only to patent the findings. They may use their findings in a new product or they may simply hold the patent for potential future litigation concerning copyright. The wheel is frequently reinvented and cat toys only need to be so complex. Of course my scope of knowledge on this subject is limited, but I find most opposing arguments simply assume that intellectual property exists.Jypthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16041674360337169010noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6598831864333990375.post-59423491599084885342011-11-21T09:58:35.538-09:002011-11-21T09:58:35.538-09:00The economic argument to justify intellectual prop...The economic argument to justify intellectual property is pretty straightforward in economics. If you don't have intellectual property rights, people won't have incentives to create, produce, or innovate if they don't see any return in their investments. Therefore, the outcome of a system without intellectual property rights is that we will have suboptimal production of these goods. Patents are the typical example of intellectual property rights. Copyrights are another one. As an economist, I can understand the argument behind patents and trade secrets. I am a little bit more suspect about the validity of the arguments behind copyrights, particularly when it comes to arts. Morally, I can understand what's wrong about making something you didn't make pass as your own. <br />When it comes to the world of the net, you don't per se own a webpage, you do own a space on a server as well as lines of code. <br />When Apple sues such and such for copyrights infringements, they are suing for lines of codes. Million of dollars are being spent on lawsuits and settlements by companies suing each other because one is using the same line of codes than another company has came up with. <br /><br />There is a significant literature on the topic. I would recommend starting with Richard Posner.Alexandre Padillahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04077320748857632892noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6598831864333990375.post-87699395409219141382011-11-20T19:22:36.522-09:002011-11-20T19:22:36.522-09:00The interesting question for me is analzying what ...The interesting question for me is analzying what you can and cannot own. Can you own physical property? Obviously yes.<br /><br />Can you own your reputation? Well, no, that exists in the minds of others and you cannot own others' minds.<br /><br />Can you own information patterns? Electrons existing on the web? Well, we already buy and sell web pages which are just electrons storing information patterns even though we tend to think of them as "space" on the web. I haven't developed a unified set of theories to apply to intellectual property and what can and cannot be owned but it's a really interesting subject and is on my to do list.SamuelVanderwaalhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12906638268162700375noreply@blogger.com