Copyright & Patent Laws Are Hurting the Economy

Patent and copyright law are stifling innovation and threatening the global economy according to two economists at Washington University in St. Louis in a new book, Against Intellectual Monopoly. Professors Michele Boldrin and David K. Levine call for abolishing the current patent and copyright system in order to unleash innovations necessary to reverse the current recession and rescue the economy. The professors discuss their stand against intellectual property protections in this video. Taken from NewsWise

Related Blogs

    Tags: , , ,

    22 Responses to “Copyright & Patent Laws Are Hurting the Economy”

    1. Dungdae Says:

      yaaaay then we actually will be able to study diseases, because no one owns the right to research it anymore…. Hmmm can’t imagine it would be made legal though… Cause then the greater companies losses a lot of money, and that would be a shame!! ??

    2. thelemur Says:

      i have been saying this for a long time 🙂

    3. tanel42 Says:

      I also hate the propaganda term “Intellectual Property”. It lumps together things that have essentially nothing in common. It operates as a catch-all to lump together disparate laws which originated separately, evolved differently, cover different activities, have different rules, and raise different public policy issues.

    4. sensibilita Says:

      yes, but … the US market mentality alone is so GREEDY and power-conscious that “the Obama age” alone may not suffice to push such ideas through the hard shell into life …

    5. littlelyera Says:

      Of course it hurts to economy, civilization is founded on inventions. Dont they consider that students are some of the most creative ppl in the world. Students who are putting off their ideas because they are scared of the risk.Students who don’t have the money.Its hurts the younger generation.

    6. reddwarf2300282 Says:

      Intellectual Monopoly is good term for intellectual “property”. I also sometimes use term intellectual slavery, because people can not act freely without paying huge money to big corporations. The are in fact slaves of corporations who have monopoly on ideas.

    7. THAWK3 Says:

      Don’t these guys understand-It’s a concentrated effort to destroy innovation and intelligence,or are they still stuck on “Govt. is good”…

    8. whoo689 Says:

      This book should be required reading in any economics class. They totally demolish the idea that intellectual property laws are somehow necessary or spur more innovation. In fact, it’s oftentimes quite the opposite! They cite LOTS of studies to back up their claims as well as history.

      Thsoe who say in college econ. books that patent laws are necessary fail to cite any REAL studies or empirical evidence. They just assume it’s a given! I once emailed Greg Mankiw about this and… nothing.

    9. whoo689 Says:

      I’d like to see any defender of the status quo make an argument after reading their book. The evidence is so overwhelming that it’s just about IMPOSSIBLE to argue for these laws after knowing the truth.

      Intellectual property laws are just more stupid, nonsensical regulations that distort the market. They put more power in the hands of big corporations and the wealthy elite and less in the hands of individuals. Those who can buy influence and pay to sue are the benefactors.

    10. Msyoutubra Says:

      boldrin sucks

    11. blaziermissy Says:

      A perfect example of psychological chaos.

      There is no such thing as a truly free market, and economics is a made up “game,” period, with flaws adnauseam.

      Meanwhile the whole of humanity suffers from this obsolete display of traditionalized…obsolete thinking.

      Venus project (dot) com

    12. reddwarf2300282 Says:

      Nice try to advertise your project. 🙂

    13. blaziermissy Says:

      Advertise? It’s the truth.

    14. captainjohnshepard Says:

      So why the heck would you want to tell anyone your ideas? It encourages disclosure and lessens the barriers to entry because the economics for research is substantially reduced.  You need to rethink your ideas. Transactions costs are a bigger problem to free trade than the limited time for intellectual property to be granted a monopoly. It gives people ideas on how to design around the patents. So if we didn’t let Disney copyright Mickey Mouse why the heck would they want to market?

    15. captainjohnshepard Says:

      So why the heck would you want to tell anyone your ideas? It encourages disclosure and lessens the barriers to entry because the economics for research is substantially reduced. You need to rethink your ideas. Transactions costs are a bigger problem to free trade than the limited time for intellectual property to be granted a monopoly. It gives people ideas on how to design around the patents. So if we didn’t let Disney copyright Mickey Mouse why the heck would they want to market?

    16. spaceking66 Says:

      i hope and pray to god that the police will prossicuite peoplle ilegally copy wright other peoples inentions and art i m hope i can work with the riaa .music united.the center for democeracy and technolagy .cnet. to come up with a legal way to download and burn music .movies .videogames .software legaly

    17. spaceking66 Says:

      inetions  inventions

    18. spaceking66 Says:

      i am all for copyright and patent laws copyright and patet laws protect and defend us artists against video pierits like you i hope and pray to god the police will naabb yyyyou for trying tochange the copyright and ppatens act

    19. malkdk Says:

      Mickey Mouse is *trademarked* by Disney, and also copyrighted. The authors don’t suggest an abolition of trademark law. Trademarks serve to prevent companies that don’t own a trademark from pretending to be the producer of a certain product, thus effectively cheating customers. This is not in the customer’s interest.
      You are right that the incentive to keep information closer, and not reveal as much to the public will probably be stronger. This is one of the negative impacts

    20. malkdk Says:

      of the abolition of patent laws. But we still have to weigh out the pros versus the cons, it’s not as simple as “good” or “bad”. There will without a doubt be some negative consequences to this abolition of patents and copyright, but after reading the book, it seems to me that the good things would outweigh the bad, by a sufficient margin, if you ask me.
      I recommend reading the book if you’d like to learn more. It’s available for free to download from their website and can also be purchased.

    21. malkdk Says:

      History doesn’t agree on the alleged positive effects of patents and copyright as much as we are led to believe. Actually the exact opposite seems to be true in many cases.

    22. JetixBeta Says:

      Then why won’t Obama and the Government remove both the patent laws and the copyright laws?