(Yet another) IP question
 

I really want to be sold on the idea that IP, specifically patents, are a net negative for society. Like most people here, I have an anti-government bias (thus, why I want to be sold). However, platitudes like "patents are monopolies and monopolies are never good" and "putting a gun to my head and telling me not to produce something is immoral" won't be enough.

I'll get it started. I'm taking a course called Law and Economics, and the text has this example (paraphrased):

It costs $10 million to invent X (in the book it's a food blender, but I'll just use X), and the marginal cost of producing and selling X once invented is $50, and the estimated demand is 1 million of the blenders. Unless the manufacturer can charge $60 per blender, he will not recoup his costs of invention. But if other manufactueres face the same marginal cost as he, competition will (assuming no patent protection) bid the price down to $50, the effort at recoupment fails, and anticipating this the manufacturer will not invent in the first place.


This result makes sense to me. I have open ears and an open mind to change.

Thanks ahead of time, and feel free to link to websites for information. I know this has been debated ad nauseam, but I find myself not totally convinced by the threads that are existing.

Re: (Yet another) IP question
 

If all you're worried about is EV, you're going to be incredibly frustrated. The economy is not a scientific laboratory. There's no control group. You have a smaple size of one. Trying to calculate policy A = EV $X and policy B = EV $Y is impossible. Give it up.

Re: (Yet another) IP question
 

[ QUOTE ]
It costs $10 million to invent X (in the book it's a food blender, but I'll just use X), and the marginal cost of producing and selling X once invented is $50, and the estimated demand is 1 million of the blenders. Unless the manufacturer can charge $60 per blender, he will not recoup his costs of invention. But if other manufactueres face the same marginal cost as he, competition will (assuming no patent protection) bid the price down to $50, the effort at recoupment fails, and anticipating this the manufacturer will not invent in the first place.

[/ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I want to be sold... However, platitudes like "patents are monopolies and monopolies are never good" and "putting a gun to my head and telling me not to produce something is immoral" won't be enough.

[/ QUOTE ]

Re: (Yet another) IP question
 

[ QUOTE ]
If all you're worried about is EV, you're going to be incredibly frustrated. The economy is not a scientific laboratory. There's no control group. You have a smaple size of one. Trying to calculate policy A = EV $X and policy B = EV $Y is impossible. Give it up.

[/ QUOTE ]

QFT

All economics are armchair philosophy.

Re: (Yet another) IP question
 

[ QUOTE ]
If all you're worried about is EV, you're going to be incredibly frustrated. The economy is not a scientific laboratory. There's no control group. You have a smaple size of one. Trying to calculate policy A = EV $X and policy B = EV $Y is impossible. Give it up.

[/ QUOTE ]
That would be true if policy B ("no IP protection") offered any advantages to offset its massive disadvantage ("sh*t doesn't get invented in the first place"). Does it?

Re: (Yet another) IP question
 

Also, note that even if you can "prove" all this, just arriving at "the inventor will not invent" is not enough to decide one way or another. You would then have to figure out what alterate use the time and resources will be put to. As you can see, your task is getting more and more difficult.

Re: (Yet another) IP question
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
If all you're worried about is EV, you're going to be incredibly frustrated. The economy is not a scientific laboratory. There's no control group. You have a smaple size of one. Trying to calculate policy A = EV $X and policy B = EV $Y is impossible. Give it up.

[/ QUOTE ]
That would be true if policy B ("no IP protection") offered any advantages to offset its massive disadvantage ("sh*t doesn't get invented in the first place"). Does it?

[/ QUOTE ]

See, this "calculation" stuff is exactly what I'm talking about.

Policy A has advantage X and disadvantage Y.

X-Y=Z

Policy B has advangate L and disadvantage M.

L-M=N

Now, you assert that one of these two is greater than the other, but you have NO WAY of assigning ANY value to X, Y, L or M. It's total pulling numbers out of your ass.

EDIT: Specifically, in this case, jogger points out that policy B has a negative, but ignores that his favored policy A *also* has a negative.

EDIT: Also, his assertion that "[censored] doesn't get invented" is demonstrably false. DUCY?

Re: (Yet another) IP question
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
If all you're worried about is EV, you're going to be incredibly frustrated. The economy is not a scientific laboratory. There's no control group. You have a smaple size of one. Trying to calculate policy A = EV $X and policy B = EV $Y is impossible. Give it up.

[/ QUOTE ]
That would be true if policy B ("no IP protection") offered any advantages to offset its massive disadvantage ("sh*t doesn't get invented in the first place"). Does it?

[/ QUOTE ]

See, this "calculation" stuff is exactly what I'm talking about.

Policy A has advantage X and disadvantage Y.

X-Y=Z

Policy B has advangate L and disadvantage M.

L-M=N

Now, you assert that one of these two is greater than the other, but you have NO WAY of assigning ANY value to X, Y, L or M. It's total pulling numbers out of your ass.

EDIT: Specifically, in this case, jogger points out that policy B has a negative, but ignores that his favored policy A *also* has a negative.

EDIT: Also, his assertion that "[censored] doesn't get invented" is demonstrably false. DUCY?

[/ QUOTE ]
I'm still waiting to hear the disadvantage of Policy A.

Re: (Yet another) IP question
 

If I were an ACist, I wouldn't slag on economics.

Re: (Yet another) IP question
 

[ QUOTE ]
If I were an ACist, I wouldn't slag on economics.

[/ QUOTE ]

Who is slagging? All I said that it's not science; that doesn't mean that it's wrong or useless. The methodology employed in economics is deductive in nature, not inductive. There has ever been a scientifically valid macroeconomic experiment in the history of mankind.