Citation

Publication Date: 2009-06-02
Format: Journal Article
Bibliography: Mark A. Lemley, A Cautious Defense of Intellectual Oligopoly with Fringe Competition, 5 Review of Law and Economics 3 (2009) / Stanford Law and Economics Olin Working Paper, No. 374.

More

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.

Other publications by this author

View All

• Tailoring Patents to Different Industries
  2011-12-25
• Don't Break the Internet
  2011-12-21
• Don't Break the Internet
  2011-12-19
• Patents, Smartphones, and the Public Interest
  2011-12-13
• Industry-Specific Antitrust Policy for Innovation
  2011-12-01
• Protect Innovators, Not Copyright Lawyers
  2011-10-19
• The Patent Crisis and How Courts Can Solve It
  2011-09-30
• Things You Should Care About in the New Patent Statute
  2011-09-16
• Life After Bilski
  2011-09-12
• Contracting Around Liability Rules
  2011-08-15