- I never asserted law or economics to be of divine origin.
What is their origin? Individual or public-common?
Law is based in accumulated experiences and decisions made by lawmakers in this and other countries. As such, it can be highly mutable.
Economics is a "soft" science based upon decades and decades of observation and collection of empirical data. As such, its rules apply equally to everyone.
The law is the law, and economics is economics. Neither distinguishes between the markets being analyzed.
As I'm sure you would agree upon reflection, this isn't actually true.
Au contraire, mon frere- I stand by that statement.
The laws of a particular type of IP apply equally to all forms of IP regardless of the industry involved (within a country- International law is a
little different). Copyright law doesn't really care if the copyrighted material is a song, a book, or lines of code. Patent doesn't care if the invention is a new space-age material, a drug, or a new kind of hydrogen fuel cell. Trademark doesn't care if you're Coca-Cola or Vivid Video.
And economics doesn't care if you're talking about IP, personal property or real property.
For example, economics has the concept of "market failure" which applies to some markets (eg the market for public goods) but not others.
Market failure could occur with personal, real, or IP.
And not all countries' education systems charge tuition fees, in recognition of this fact, and many countries allow various sorts of public subsidies or support for research and development, also in recognition of this fact
.
The education may be free to the student, but there are still economic costs involved which must be borne by someone- again, the tuition, maintenance of physical plant, etc.- probably in the form of taxes.
I think many libertarian economists would in fact regard the monopolies that IP law grants (especially patent rights) as obstacles to production, not facilitators thereof.
Monopolies of
many kinds are obstacles to production- that's why most countries have some kind of Anti-trust laws.
However,
natural monopolies and those derived from IP are a different story. For one thing, IP monopolies are statutorily limited in duration.
But even innovation-oriented economics (eg Schumpeter) might not accept that IP rights of the modern sort are an essential underpinning thereto - there are many other factors that are necessary conditions of innovation, including the access of the entrepreneur to a wide range of knowledge.
If you don't reward free human beings for their efforts, they'll stop making those efforts.
If inventors & other IP creators aren't rewarded for their efforts by being allowed to profit from them, you'll see a marked downturn in innovation.
The law also distinguishes between markets. For example, TRIPS (the principal international legal agreement pertaining to IP rights) allows for compulsory licencing of patent rights in certain markets - typically the markets for public goods, such as health-related products - but not in others.
Have you
read TRIPS?
http://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/trips_e/t_agm3_e.htm#1
Most of what they're talking about wouldn't be patentable anyway.
"3. Members may also exclude from patentability:
(a) diagnostic, therapeutic and surgical methods for the treatment of humans or animals; "
etc. doesn't apply to medications/pharmaceuticals.
Surgical techniques aren't patentable- though some devices used in surgery are...and guess what? TRIPS doesn't affect the patentability of that either by member exclusion or mandatory licensing!
And even where TRIPS does allow someone to circumnavigate another nation's IP laws, it does so with a host of limitations- each case is considered individually on its merits, it must follow a failed negotiation, the use must be limited in duration and/or scope, can only be within the circumnavigator's country, can be terminated, etc.
Most importantly, the IP holder
is still entitled to compensation, reduced though it may be.
So TRIPS still has a host of economic costs associated with it, and does not actually negate any IP monopoly. At best, it minimizes the effects of an IP monopoly in a limited arena of applications in a few countries. And because it does
that, any competent economist will tell you that the IP holder will probably jack up the price of use of its IP to those who don't have a TRIPS exception, meaning that the IP holder makes the rest of the world subsidize the less fortunate.
As to whether or not IP rights are essential to the technological progress of civilisation...I think most economic historians would regard IP rights as only one of very many and complex factors that contributes to technological development, let alone economic development more generally.
I didn't say that IP rights are essential to technological progress in civilization, nor are they the sole cause of prosperity- I merely assert that modern IP laws accelerate the process, and I'm backed up by any empirical observations you'd care to examine.
The rate of change in technological change has increased faster in those countries that protect IP faster than in those that do not.
Those countries that protect IP are more prosperous and are home to more technological companies and a more diverse range of industries than those that do not.
Per capita incomes, GNP, etc- all follow the same trend. If your country protects IP, it does better.
And when you look at the resumes of
individuals in so-called "Third World" or "emergent" nations who drive their countries' tech & IP based industries, you'll find that the vast majority spent a good amount of time in the graduate schools of developed nations that protect IP.
) of their hearts.
