IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/bpj/rlecon/v5y2009i3n3.html

A Cautious Defense of Intellectual Oligopoly With Fringe Competition

Author

Listed:
  • Lemley Mark A.

    (Stanford Law School)

Abstract

In a 2008 paper, Michele Boldrin and David Levine offer a strong attack on intellectual property. While Boldrin and Levine make a plausible case, it is an exaggeration to say as they do that patents and copyrights are intellectual monopolies and are not necessary to encourage invention or creation. More significant is their claim that competition, not monopoly, drives innovation. Boldrin and Levine overstate the case for competitive innovation and understate the case for innovation driven by either market power or the prospect of acquiring market power through patent innovation. They are correct that we will get some innovation in many industries, and even the same level of innovation in some industries, without IP protection. But for most types of invention and creation we just can’t be confident that IP isn’t driving at least some innovation. On balance, IP protection will give us more benefit in the industries in which it spurs competitive innovation and fringe competition than the harm it causes in raising prices and constraining downstream innovation. It is, as Mike Scherer puts it, “a system that, despite its manifest imperfections, has worked tolerably well.” Nonetheless, Boldrin and Levine do point the way toward needed reforms of the IP system short of its abolition.

Suggested Citation

  • Lemley Mark A., 2009. "A Cautious Defense of Intellectual Oligopoly With Fringe Competition," Review of Law & Economics, De Gruyter, vol. 5(3), pages 1025-1035, December.
    • Handle: RePEc:bpj:rlecon:v:5:y:2009:i:3:n:3
    DOI: 10.2202/1555-5879.1436
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.2202/1555-5879.1436
    Download Restriction: For access to full text, subscription to the journal or payment for the individual article is required.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.2202/1555-5879.1436?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to

    for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. James Bessen & Michael J. Meurer, 2008. "Introduction to Patent Failure: How Judges, Bureaucrats, and Lawyers Put Innovators at Risk," Introductory Chapters, in: Patent Failure: How Judges, Bureaucrats, and Lawyers Put Innovators at Risk, Princeton University Press.
    2. Mark A Lemley, 2004. "Ex Ante versus Ex Post Justifications for Intellectual Property," Levine's Working Paper Archive 122247000000000492, David K. Levine.
    3. Kitch, Edmund W, 1977. "The Nature and Function of the Patent System," Journal of Law and Economics, University of Chicago Press, vol. 20(2), pages 265-290, October.
    4. Boldrin,Michele & Levine,David K., 2010. "Against Intellectual Monopoly," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521127264, Enero-Abr.
    5. Robert M. Solow, 1956. "A Contribution to the Theory of Economic Growth," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 70(1), pages 65-94.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Dmitrii Trubnikov, 2017. "Analysing the Impact of Regulation on Disruptive Innovations: The Case of Wireless Technology," Journal of Industry, Competition and Trade, Springer, vol. 17(4), pages 399-420, December.
    2. Barbosa, Natália & Faria, Ana Paula, 2011. "Innovation across Europe: How important are institutional differences?," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 40(9), pages 1157-1169.
    3. McManis Charles, 2009. "A Rhetorical Response to Boldrin & Levine: Against Intellectual (Property) Extremism," Review of Law & Economics, De Gruyter, vol. 5(3), pages 1081-1100, December.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. repec:osf:socarx:qzmf8_v1 is not listed on IDEAS
    2. Christian Bjørnskov & Niklas Potrafke, 2012. "Political Ideology and Economic Freedom Across Canadian Provinces," Eastern Economic Journal, Palgrave Macmillan;Eastern Economic Association, vol. 38(2), pages 143-166.
    3. Gaétan de Rassenfosse & Kyle Higham, 2024. "Decentralising the patent system," Chapters, in: Walter G. Park (ed.), Handbook of Innovation and Intellectual Property Rights, chapter 8, pages 120-138, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    4. Sam Meng, 2019. "A New Design for the Patent System," Journal of the Knowledge Economy, Springer;Portland International Center for Management of Engineering and Technology (PICMET), vol. 10(3), pages 1204-1229, September.
    5. Angus Chu & Guido Cozzi, 2018. "Effects of Patents versus R&D subsidies on Income Inequality," Review of Economic Dynamics, Elsevier for the Society for Economic Dynamics, vol. 29, pages 68-84, July.
    6. Massimiliano Granieri, 2011. "A Law and Economics Introduction to Patent Law and Procedure," Chapters, in: Federico Munari & Raffaele Oriani (ed.), The Economic Valuation of Patents, chapter 2, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    7. Chu, Angus C. & Kou, Zonglai & Wang, Xilin, 2019. "Effects of Patents on the Industrial Revolution," MPRA Paper 91819, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    8. Maxime Lambrecht, 2017. "The time limit on copyright: an unlikely tragedy of the intellectual commons," European Journal of Law and Economics, Springer, vol. 43(3), pages 475-494, June.
    9. Jeon, Heesang, 2015. "Knowledge and Contemporary Capitalism in Light of Marx's Value Theory," Thesis Commons g5njk, Center for Open Science.
    10. Douglas Hanley, 2014. "Innovation, Technological Interdependence, and Economic Growth," Working Paper 533, Department of Economics, University of Pittsburgh, revised Jan 2014.
    11. Ryan, Michael P., 2010. "Patent Incentives, Technology Markets, and Public-Private Bio-Medical Innovation Networks in Brazil," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 38(8), pages 1082-1093, August.
    12. Mezzanotti, Filippo & Simcoe, Timothy, 2019. "Patent policy and American innovation after eBay: An empirical examination," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 48(5), pages 1271-1281.
    13. Scott, Peter & Spadavecchia, Anna, 2023. "Patents, industry control, and the rise of the giant American corporation," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 52(1).
    14. Kelvin W. Willoughby, 2013. "Intellectual Property Management And Technological Entrepreneurship," International Journal of Innovation and Technology Management (IJITM), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 10(06), pages 1-42.
    15. Angus C. Chu & Yuichi Furukawa & Lei Ji, 2016. "Patents, R&D subsidies, and endogenous market structure in a schumpeterian economy," Southern Economic Journal, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 82(3), pages 809-825, January.
    16. Nancy Gallini, 2011. "Private agreements for coordinating patent rights: the case of patent pools," ECONOMIA E POLITICA INDUSTRIALE, FrancoAngeli Editore, vol. 2011(3), pages 5-30.
    17. Dosi, Giovanni & Palagi, Elisa & Roventini, Andrea & Russo, Emanuele, 2023. "Do patents really foster innovation in the pharmaceutical sector? Results from an evolutionary, agent-based model," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 212(C), pages 564-589.
    18. Salzberger, Eli, 2011. "The dominant Law and Economics paradigm regarding “Intellectual Property" – a vehicle or an obstacle for innovation, growth and progress?," Ratio Working Papers 177, The Ratio Institute.
    19. Angus C. Chu & Zonglai Kou & Xilin Wang, 2020. "Effects of patents on the transition from stagnation to growth," Journal of Population Economics, Springer;European Society for Population Economics, vol. 33(2), pages 395-411, April.
    20. Harabi, Najib, 1994. "Technischer Fortschritt in der Schweiz: Empirische Ergebnisse aus industrieökonomischer Sicht [Technischer Fortschritt in der Schweiz:Empirische Ergebnisse aus industrieökonomischer Sicht]," MPRA Paper 6725, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    21. Jinfeng Luo & Yi Wen, 2015. "Institutions Do Not Rule: Reassessing the Driving Forces of Economic Development," Working Papers 2015-1, Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:bpj:rlecon:v:5:y:2009:i:3:n:3. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Peter Golla (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.degruyterbrill.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.