The innovation argument for IP could be used by any other monopolist. The prospect of a royal monopoly in trade with India may be said to stimulate a merchant company to first open up trade with that country. Indeed why stop with artistic, literary, and engineering innovators? Why, in the modern era, do we not offer monopolies in business models and strategies to innovators? Why shouldnt monopolies have been granted for just-in-time manufacturing or big box retailing? Sure, it would have impeded emulation, obstructed their widespread employment, and kept them from benefiting consumers. But they might have happened a little sooner if people thought that by developing such innovations, they could get a legal lock on them, and enjoy a long stream of monopoly profits! And remember, the innovation argument has been used by the biggest monopolist of them all, which itself begets all other monopolies: the State. It is often along this line of reasoning: I was the first to clear this land of bandits and this sea of pirates. I am the first to fully provide defense with force to this land, and therefore I should henceforth have a monopoly of force. Read, for example, Plutarch. Didnt Theseus, by clearing the roads of highwaymen and monsters, demonstrate why he and his inheritors deserve to rule Athens?
Posted on: Sat, 09 Nov 2013 17:13:23 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015