I have previously talked about their book from 2008 (i think), which is mighty interesting. Not the least for me being on the board of directors for the danish pirate party. This paper is a kind of follow-up general introduction, which also includes technical aspects. Perhaps it is written for economists not familiar with the patent debate? It was an interesting read nonetheless.<\/p>\n
–<\/p>\n
The Case Against Patents<\/a>\u00a0– mentioned here<\/a>.<\/p>\n First paragraf:<\/p>\n The case against patents can be summarized briefly: there is no empirical evidence that they serve<\/span> <\/p>\n Closing paragraf:<\/p>\n The aim of policy, in general, should be that of slowly but surely decreasing the strength of I have previously talked about their book from 2008 (i think), which is mighty interesting. Not the least for me being on the board of directors for the danish pirate party. This paper is a kind of follow-up general introduction, which also includes technical aspects. Perhaps it is written for economists not familiar with the […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":17,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[],"tags":[1924],"class_list":["post-3277","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","tag-patents","entry"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/emilkirkegaard.dk\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3277","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/emilkirkegaard.dk\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/emilkirkegaard.dk\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/emilkirkegaard.dk\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/17"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/emilkirkegaard.dk\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=3277"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/emilkirkegaard.dk\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3277\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":3279,"href":"https:\/\/emilkirkegaard.dk\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3277\/revisions\/3279"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/emilkirkegaard.dk\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=3277"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/emilkirkegaard.dk\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=3277"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/emilkirkegaard.dk\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=3277"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}
\nto increase innovation and productivity, unless the latter is identified with the number of patents awarded<\/span>
\n\u2013 which, as evidence shows, has no correlation with measured productivity. This is at the root of the<\/span>
\n\u201cpatent puzzle\u201d: in spite of the enormeous increase in the number of patents and in the strength of their<\/span>
\nlegal protection we have neither seen a dramatic acceleration in the rate of technological progress nor a<\/span>
\nmajor increase in the levels of R&D expenditure \u2013 in addition to the discussion in this paper, see Lerner<\/span>
\n[2009] and literature therein. As we shall see, there is strong evidence, instead, that patents have many<\/span>
\nnegative consequences. Both of these observations, the evidence in support of which has grown steadily<\/span>
\nover time, are consistent with theories of innovation that emphasize competition and first-mover<\/span>
\nadvantage as the main drivers of innovation and directly contradict \u201cSchumpeterian\u201d theories postulating<\/span>
\nthat government granted monopolies are crucial in order to provide incentives for innovation. The<\/span>
\ndiffering predictive and explanatory powers of the two alternative classes of models persist when<\/span>
\nattention is shifted to the historical evidence on the life-cycle of industries. The initial eruption of small<\/span>
\nand large innovations leading to the creation of a new industry \u2013 from chemicals to cars, from radio and<\/span>
\nTV to personal computers and investment banking \u2013 is seldom, if ever, born out of patent protection and<\/span>
\nis, instead, the fruits of highly competitive-cooperative environments. It is only after the initial stages of<\/span>
\nexplosive innovation and rampant growth end that mature industries turn toward the legal protection of<\/span>
\npatents, usually because their internal grow potential diminishes and the industry structure become<\/span>
\nconcentrated.<\/span><\/p>\n
\nintellectual property interventions but the final goal cannot be anything short of abolition. Once again, if
\nat the times of Machlup one could still nurture doubts and wonder if the system could not be reformed in
\na credible and stable form, in 2012 one must ask: is not six decades of failure enough time? Is it not time
\nto take seriously the idea of patent abolition and begin the discussion of these transitional issues?<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"