View source for A Cautious Defense of Intellectual Oligopoly with Fringe Competition

Michele Boldrin and David Levine offer a strong attack on intellectual
property (IP), which they call “intellectual monopoly.” In their view, IP
is not necessary to encourage invention or creation. Quite the contrary,
they argue that we get innovation from competition, not monopoly. Further,
because monopoly imposes well-recognized social costs, we are better off
without it if it doesn’t in fact spur new innovation.

Boldrin and Levine make a plausible case on their own terms. Nonetheless, I
think their terms are misleading. IP rights are rarely if ever
“intellectual monopolies.” Most patents, to say nothing of most copyrights,
create no economic rents. What this means is that we can’t assume that IP
rights generally impose deadweight losses on society. They cause deviation
from atomistic, perfect competition, but they don’t cause monopoly pricing.
With a small number of exceptions, therefore, they don’t cause the social
harms Boldrin and Levine correctly associate with monopoly pricing.

Lemley, M. (2016, September 1). A Cautious Defense of Intellectual Oligopoly with Fringe Competition. https://doi.org/10.31235/osf.io/2fpkm

[[Category: Social and Behavioral Sciences]]