The Case Against Intellectual Property
AbstractAccording to a common argument, the presence of strong intellectual property rights spurs innovation, which then leads to fiercer competition, higher economic growth and increasing benefits for the average consumers. We argue that, in the case of intellectual property rights, this has lead to misconceptions and abuses. Current legislation on intellectual property confuses the protection of property rights on objects in which ideas are embodied with the attribution of monopoly power on the idea itself and, furthermore, with restrictions on the usage of such goods on the part of the buyers. This implies that both patent and copyright laws should be dramatically altered. To back up our claim we provide theoretical arguments, even for the most extreme case in which goods are produced at a positive fixed cost and zero marginal cost.
Download InfoIf you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. In case of further problems read the IDEAS help page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS site. Please be patient as the files may be large.
Bibliographic InfoPaper provided by C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers in its series CEPR Discussion Papers with number 3273.
Date of creation: Mar 2002
Date of revision:
Contact details of provider:
Postal: Centre for Economic Policy Research, 77 Bastwick Street, London EC1V 3PZ.
Phone: 44 - 20 - 7183 8801
Fax: 44 - 20 - 7183 8820
Other versions of this item:
- L10 - Industrial Organization - - Market Structure, Firm Strategy, and Market Performance - - - General
- L40 - Industrial Organization - - Antitrust Issues and Policies - - - General
- O31 - Economic Development, Technological Change, and Growth - - Technological Change; Research and Development; Intellectual Property Rights - - - Innovation and Invention: Processes and Incentives
This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:
- NEP-ALL-2003-03-14 (All new papers)
Please report citation or reference errors to , or , if you are the registered author of the cited work, log in to your RePEc Author Service profile, click on "citations" and make appropriate adjustments.:
- Michele Boldrin & David K Levine, 2006.
"Perfectly Competitive Innovation,"
Levine's Working Paper Archive
618897000000000954, David K. Levine.
- Boldrin, Michele & Levine, David, 2002. "Perfectly Competitive Innovation," CEPR Discussion Papers 3274, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.
- Michele Boldrin & David K. Levine, 2002. "Perfectly competitive innovation," Staff Report 303, Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis.
- Michele Boldrin & David K Levine, 2000. "Perfectly Competitive Innovation," Levine's Working Paper Archive 1996, David K. Levine.
- Michele Boldrin & David K Levine, 2002. "Perfectly Competitive Innovation," Levine's Working Paper Archive 625018000000000192, David K. Levine.
- Joshua S. Gans & David H. Hsu & Scott Stern, 2002.
"When Does Start-Up Innovation Spur the Gale of Creative Destruction?,"
RAND Journal of Economics,
The RAND Corporation, vol. 33(4), pages 571-586, Winter.
- Joshua S. Gans & David H. Hsu & Scott Stern, 2000. "When Does Start-Up Innovation Spur the Gale of Creative Destruction?," NBER Working Papers 7851, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
- Paul Romer, 1990.
"Are Nonconvexities Important For Understanding Growth?,"
NBER Working Papers
3271, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
- Romer, Paul M, 1990. "Are Nonconvexities Important for Understanding Growth?," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 80(2), pages 97-103, May.
This item has more than 25 citations. To prevent cluttering this page, these citations are listed on a separate page. reading list or among the top items on IDEAS.Access and download statisticsgeneral information about how to correct material in RePEc.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: ().
If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.