Against Intellectual Monopoly PDF Free Download

Against Intellectual Monopoly PDF Download Info

Against Intellectual Monopoly Book By Michele Boldrin PDF Free Download, Overview, Get book, Summary, Reviews, Quotes.

Against Intellectual Monopoly PDF Free Download

This Book Explores Copyrights And Patents. It Contends That They Are Not Essential For Innovation And Are Really Harmful To The General Welfare. The Book Is Written For A General Readership, Focuses On Straightforward Examples, And Differs From Rival Works In That It Covers A Wide Range Of Copyrights And Patents.

“One Must Carry A Hefty Burden Of Evidence In Order To Benefit From A Monopoly. That Cost Has Been Significantly Enhanced For Individuals Who Benefit From Intellectual Monopoly According To Boldrin And Levine. This Work Should Be Read By All Economists, Attorneys, Judges, And Policymakers. University Of Wisconsin, Madison’s W. A. Brock

“Respected Economic Theorists Boldin And Levine Have Written A Colourful And Engaging Book For The Informed Layperson. They Contend That We Would Be Better Off Without Patents And Dispute The Accepted Knowledge Around Them. A New Discussion On The Protection Of Intellectual Property Policy Will Be Sparked By The Book. Boyan Jovanovic, University Of New York

“There Is A Significant And Growing Scepticism About The Fundamental Principles We Have Employed To Control Innovation And Access To Information.” This Well Crafted And Convincing Argument Advances That Skeptic’s Charge. Law School At Stanford: Lawrence Lessig

Intellectual Property Rights Have Long Been Seen As Crucial To Creativity. Two Of The Best Economists In The World Today, Boldrin And Levine, Suggest Doing Away With The Whole Ipr System. Although Their Points Of Contention Need Careful Consideration. Eric Maskin, Princeton’s Institute For Advanced Study

This Book Is Essential And Necessary. Boldrin And Levine Provide A Strong Argument Against Providing Intellectual Property An Excessive Amount Of Monopoly Powers. Intellectual Property Monopolies Prevent The Growth Of Valuable Knowledge. They Argue, In My Opinion, That Providing These Monopoly Rights Hinders Innovation. University Of Minnesota Student Edward C. Prescott

“Boldrin And Levine Present A Compelling Case That The Evolution Of Intellectual Property Rights Is Harmful To Effective Economic Organisation.” Washington University In St. Louis’ Douglass C. North

How Did We Come To Perceive Concepts As If They Had A Physical Presence That We Could Secure Behind A System Of Property Rights Regulations Similar To Yet Startlingly Distinct From Those We Employ To Safeguard Our Physical Property? In Their Book, Against Intellectual Monopoly, Michele Boldrin And David Levine Address This Issue Head-on. The Conclusion They Reach Is Startling: Excepting A Few Exceptional Circumstances, Intellectual Property Protection Should Be Abolished Since It Causes More Economic Damage Than Gain. Boldrin And Levine Repeatedly Demonstrate How The Technology Of Digital Computers And The Internet Has Brought To Light Long-standing Moral Flaws In The Present Intellectual Property Rules In A Particularly Striking Manner. Stephen Spear, University Of Carnegie Mellon

This Stimulating Work Should Be Read By Policymakers, The General Public, And Scholars Interested In Intellectual Property, Innovation, Growth, And Market Dynamics. Martin Peitz, Mannheim University

At Washington University In St. Louis, Michele Boldrin Holds The Joseph G. Hoyt Distinguished Professor Of Economics In Arts And Sciences Title. He Is A Research Fellow At Fedea (Madrid) And The Centre For Economic Policy Research (London), As Well As A Fellow Of The Econometric Society. He Serves As An Advisory Editor For Cambridge University Press’s Macroeconomic Dynamics, An Editor For The Review Of Economic Dynamics, And An Associate Editor For Econometrica. His Areas Of Interest In Study Include Intergenerational And Demographic Concerns, Growth, Innovation, And Economic Cycles, Public Policy, Institutions, And Social Norms. The American Economic Review, Econometrica, The Review Of Economic Studies, The Journal Of Political Economy, The Journal Of Economic Theory, The Review Of Economic Dynamics, The Journal Of Monetary Economics, And The Journal Of Economic Dynamics And Control Are Just A Few Of The Prestigious Journals In Which He Has Published. He Is Also A Coauthor Or Coeditor Of Four Books.

At Washington University In St. Louis, David K. Levine Holds The John H. Biggs Distinguished Chair In Economics. He Is The President Of The Society For Economic Dynamics, A Fellow Of The Econometric Society, And A Research Associate Of The National Bureau For Economic Research. He Is Also A Coeditor Of Econometrica And Naj Economics. His Research Interests Include The Analysis Of Intellectual Property And Endogenous Growth In Dynamic General Equilibrium Models, The Endogenous Formation Of Preferences, Institutions, And Social Norms, And The Application Of Game Theory To Experimental Economics. He Co-authored Learning In Games With Drew Fudenberg And Served As Editor Of Several Conference Volumes. The American Economic Review, Econometrica, The Review Of Economic Studies, The Journal Of Political Economy, The Journal Of Economic Theory, The Quarterly Journal Of Economics, And The American Political Science Review Are Just A Few Of The Prestigious Publications Where Professor Levine Has Written.

Synopsis Of Against Intellectual Monopoly

The 2007 Book Against Intellectual Monopoly By Michele Boldrin And David Levine Presents A Cogent, Well Crafted, And Convincing Defence Against Weak Government Protection Of Intellectual Property Rights. According To The Authors, Firms Do Not Respond To Increased Levels Of Intellectual Property Protection By Actually Producing More Innovation Or, If They Do, Such Additional Creation Is Not Socially Optimal. Instead, They Argue, Firms Respond To Increased Levels Of Intellectual Property Protection By Generating Distributional Outcomes That Are Perverse. The Book Has Certain Issues, Although Being Generally Pretty Solid; For Example, Its Normative Assessments Of Medicine Firms Are Greatly Exaggerated, And The First-mover Argument Fails To Fully Handle The Nearly Immediate Availability Of Many Copyrighted Items Online. Although The Book Does Not Specifically Take An Austrian Stance, It Does Apply The Logic Of The Advantages Of Competitive Markets To Non-tangible Products And Comes To Conclusions That Libertarians Are Likely To Find Agreeable.

According To The Authors, Substantial Technical Advancement Happens More Or Less On Its Own As A Consequence Of People Making Little Adjustments To Better Goods And Procedures, And That The Financial Incentives Provided By Intellectual Property Monopolies Do Not Greatly Encourage Innovation. The Book’s Writers Addressed This Case Well And Provided Several Instances To Back Up Their Claim That Intellectual Monopolies Impede Technological Advancement. They Also Give Examples Of Markets That Have Thrived In The Absence Of Strong Intellectual Property Rights: Hollywood Became The World Leader In Film Production Because Washington Was Unable To Enforce Edison’s Patents There; The German Chemical Engineering Political Action Group’s Campaign Against Domestic Patenting Laws While Actively Encouraging Patent Laws In Rival Countries; The Quick-paced And Generally Highly Responsive Fashion Markets; The Music Industry; And The Computer And Video Game Industries. The Sheer Volume Of Examples Used To Support Their Claim—sectors That Suffered From Strong Intellectual Property, As Well As Industries That Thrived As A Result Of The Creative Destruction Fostered By The Intense Competition Brought On By Low Intellectual Property—is Convincing.

Many Of The Imaginative Works By Boldrin And Levine (2007) Are Motivated By Self-actualization And First-mover Advantages. They Cast Doubt On The Idea That A Single Inventor Would Spend The Whole Night Trying To Solve A Complex Issue With Financial Incentives At The Forefront Of His Or Her Thoughts. According To The Authors, First-mover Advantages In Currently Protected Goods Provide Enough Financial Incentive For The Creation Of Creative Works. They Provide Several Convincing Examples From Literature, Cinema, And Music To Back Up Their Position.

The Writers Do Not Anticipate A Large Decrease In The Output Of Creative Works As A Result Of The Termination Of Copyright. The Monopolistic Advantages From Copyright Will Be Less Significant, But When Ip Rules Are Reduced, The Market Size Is Also Expected To Increase, Which Might Have An Unclear Effect Overall. It Is Clear That This Is A Subjective Claim That Is Nearly Completely Supported By Reasoning Rather Than Fact, And It Is Unclear How One Could Really Prove This Argument In The Face Of A Convincing Counterclaim.

Additionally Convincing Is The Empirical Data Provided By Boldrin And Levine (2007). Stronger Intellectual Property Rights Do Not Lead To Higher Levels Of Original Work, In-depth Research, Or Economic Development When Beginning From A Position Of Moderate Intellectual Property Protection. Only More Litigation And Patents Have Been Demonstrated To Result From Stricter Patent Rules.

The Writers Often Make The Case That First-mover Benefits Enable Businesses To Benefit From Manufacturing Economies Of Scale And That Impatient Effects Will Result In Short Monopoly Profits Soon After The Introduction Of Items That Are Now Covered By Copyright. There Are Conceptual Issues With This Reasoning.

While This Is Undoubtedly True Of Patents, Which Use Logic And An Overwhelming Amount Of Stories To Demonstrate That This Advantage Exists In Physical Commodities, It Is Unlikely To Be The Case For Nonphysical Goods That May Be Shared Across Peer-to-peer Networks. The Only Distinction Between The Illegally Downloaded Versions Of Video Games And Music And The Pirated Versions Is That End Users Do Not Receive The Physical Dvd, Cd, Or Packaging Associated With Purchased Goodsfootnote1. Pirated Versions Of Video Games, Movies, And Music Are Frequently Available On The Day Of Release On Well-known Torrent Websites. The Authors Contend That The First Mover And Impatience Effects Would Provide A Sufficient Financial Incentive To Encourage The Creation Of Films, Novels, And Video Games.

The Writers May Have Included A Second Declaration To Support Their Claim That There Is No Copyright. Many Businesses Have Successfully Implemented Tactics In De Facto Intellectual Property Voids. The Grateful Dead Used An Eclectic Approach To Ip Enforcement, Microsoft Frequently Ignores End-user Piracy To Increase Market Share, Blizzard Develops Products That Are Difficult To Pirate And Offers Compelling Product Updates, And South Park Offers Its Goods For Free And Streams Advertisements. Additionally, The Majority Of Dvd And Cd Manufacturers Distinguish Their Goods Through Limited Editions, Exclusive Artwork, And Ancillary Items.footnote2 In The Lack Of Intellectual Property Protection, Businesses May Still Make Money From Their Ideas; They Simply Need To Keep Innovating And Adapt To The Often Shifting Preferences Of Consumers. It Is Not Unexpected That Many Businesses Would Prefer Not To Do This.

Some Of The Normative Implications Made By Boldrin And Levine (2007) Are Blatantly Unsupported. For Neglecting To Provide Their Products To People In Africa At No Profit, The Writers Link The Ceos Of Medicine Firms To Hitler And Stalin. It Is Obvious That Limiting The Manufacturing Of Medications That Extend The Lives Of Individuals With Hiv And Aids In Order To Make Economic Rents Is Not A Selfless Act, But It Is Also Not Morally Equal To Committing Widespread Political Murder. Adolf Hitler Is Not Always Someone Who Is Not Oscar Schindler.

The Empirical Study Is Somewhat Constrained Since It Is Difficult To Quantify The Connection Between Macrotechnology And Intellectual Property. Boldrin And Levine’s (2007) Arguments Were Generally Supported By Independent Research. Innovation Was Undoubtedly Boosted By The 1917 Trading With The Enemy Act, Which Essentially Removed Any Intellectual Property Owned By Germans Or German Enterprises In The Us (Moser And Voena, 2009). Innovation Unquestionably Benefited From The Ftc And Doj’s Efforts To Undermine Patents In The Telephone And Copy Machine Industries (Breshanan 1985). Although It Is Obvious That Further Study In This Area Is Necessary, The Research That Has Already Been Done In This Area Mainly Supports The Authors’ Claims.

Research On This Topic In Social Psychology Nearly Entirely Disregards Profits; Admittedly, This Field Is Going More Towards Creative And Scientific Innovation Than Commercial Action. Viewpoints Of Creativity And Invention In The Fieldfootnote3 Place An Emphasis On Random Factors, Self-actualization, Theories That Build Upon One Another Through Time, The Existence Of A Single Extraordinarily High-iq Genius, The Zeitgeist, Other Minority Viewpoints, And Synthesised Versions Of These Ideas. Monopoly Profits—and Basic Economic Incentives—are Not Seen To Be The Main Driving Factor Behind Innovation. Entrepreneurs Have Been Somewhat Underrepresented In This Literature, But It Doesn’t Seem Plausible That We Will Pass Over The Next Newton Or Vivaldi Due To A Lack Of Intellectual Property Protection.

According To A Review Of The Social Psychology And Economics Literature, Innovation Seems To Depend On Chance, Self-actualization, Spontaneous Discovery, And A Zeitgeist That Promotes Fierce Rivalry, Financial Success, And Unofficial Social Benefits. Each Component Undoubtedly Plays A Different Role Depending On The Field; Earnings Are Probably A Bigger Driving Force Behind The Development Of New Commercial Art Forms And Prescription Medications Than They Are For Poetry Or Social Science. While Proponents Of Strict Forms Of Intellectual Property Rights Have Sometimes Grossly Inflated The Role Of Profits, Boldrine And Levine (2007) Include The Complexity Of Possible Factors Of Innovation Into Their Argument.

The Authors’ Best Arguments And The Few Empirical Data Show That The Most Effective Level Of Intellectual Property Protection Would Be A Rather Low One. The First Mover Defence Fails For Many Copyrighted Products, And The Authors Haven’t Fully Demonstrated The Detrimental Long-term Economic Effects Of Prescription Drug Patent Protection, But The Rest Of Their Arguments Are Very Strong, And The Empirical Data Generally Supports Their Claims.

The Authors Acknowledge That Some Intellectual Property May Encourage Innovation That Improves Welfare, But They Contend That Any Level Of Intellectual Property Protection Will Lead To Rent Seeking, Which Will In Turn Cause Public Choice Issues That Will Eventually Result In A Strong-form Ip State. This Claim Does Have Some Validity, To Some Extent.footnote4 In The End, It Seems That The Decision Between Having Little Or No Intellectual Property Protection Comes Down To Whether One Values The Welfare-improving Effects Of Some Intellectual Property Protection More Than The Dangers Associated With Public Choice. The Topic Of Whether Public Choice Concerns Are A Trend Or A Fate Is Simply Too Wide For This Essay. Against Intellectual Monopoly Is An Intriguing And Thought-provoking Book, Despite Its Flaws.

Against Intellectual Monopoly Reviews

I Was Unaware Of How Lax The Copyright Laws Were. Understanding How The Present Rules Were Created And How Unexpected Their First Justifications Were—spoiler Alert—they Solely Served To Help The Very Tiny Number Of Current Company Owners—was Particularly Fascinating.

When You Bring Up The Subject Of Whether Patents Exist In Society, It Might Be Difficult To Respond To The Commonsense Layperson Response That “Nobody Would Make Anything.” Therefore, It Is Fitting That The Book Concentrates On Empirical Evidence To Refute This Viewpoint, Utilising A Wide Range Of Cases. Since “Intellectual Property” Is Often Included In Political Platforms For Development Today, I Heartily Suggest This Book To Policy Officials, But I Worry That The Title Will Turn Them Off.

Cons: I Didn’t Think The Book’s Organisation Was Very Logical. There Is A Theory Chapter That Non-economists Could Find Challenging To Understand.

This Is An Amazing Piece Of Work That Makes Strong Arguments From A Mostly Unbiased Political Standpoint To Show That Intellectual Copyright, Or Monopoly, As The Authors Like To Call It, Simply Does Not Promote Competition, Financial Gain, Or Social Advantages. An Good Work With Strong Arguments.

I Really Hope That Everyone Reads This Book. It Contains A Wealth Of Information About The Constraints Our Modern Civilization Suffers As A Result Of Allowing Our Leaders To Forge Monopolies That Serve No State’s Overall National Interests. The Fundamental Premise Is That If You Restrict What Can Be Done, You Restrict What May Be Built Upon That. If The Present Tendency Continues, There Won’t Be Any Giants For Us To Stand On. Consider If Any Of The Original Writers Of The Mickey Mouse Narrative Are Benefiting Financially From Their Creation. I’ll End Here.

Enjoy This Workout While You Still Have The Chance.

Patents And Copyrights Are Examples Of “Intellectual Property,” Which Has Drawn Criticism. Teenagers Are Being Sued For “Pirating” Music, While Aids Patients In Africa Are Dying Away Because They Are Unable To Afford The Expensive Medications That Patent Holders Demand. Do We Need Patents And Copyrights In Order For Everyone To Enjoy Great Music And Excellent Health? Are They Necessary For Flourishing Innovation And Creation? The Overwhelming Response, Throughout Both Time And Space, Is No. The So-called “Intellectual Monopoly” Of So-called Intellectual Property Really Works Against The Competitive Free Market System That Has Brought Innovation And Riches To Our Doorsteps Rather Than For It. This Book Is Intended For A General Readership And Focuses On Straightforward Examples. It Covers Both Copyrights And Patents In Great Detail. The Writers Come To The Conclusion That Abolishing The Present Systems Of Copyright And Patents Is The Only Rational Course Of Action.

Against Intellectual Monopoly pdf link: