Re: Re: Notes on a talk I will give on Wed.

[Ken Hanly <khanly@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

The model of efficiency and Pareto optimality in
neo-classical economics within a perfectly free market
assumes perfect knowledge by participants. If there
are patents then this condition will not be met. The
introduction of patents
is usually justified as producing some type of dynamic
efficiency rather than
the efficiency of a static equilibrium. If there were no
patents it is argued that there would be no incentive to
develop new processes etc. since everyone would have access
to that knowledge and the developer would not recoup his or
her investment -plus a bundle. Some have suggested medals,
and monetary awards by government etc. for inventions rather
than privatising this knowledge. Even
Milton Friedman suggests that the 20 year period of patents
is too long and
inefficient.
    Cheers, Ken Hanly

Xxxx Xxxxx Xxxxxx wrote:
>
> Michael Parelman wrote:
>
> > >Today, United States depends on the sale of goods protected >from
> > >competition by intellectual property rights.  Not surprisingly, >three of
> >
> > >the four richest people in this country are associated with one >of these
> >
> > >companies.  Intellectual property rights, however, are >monopolies that
> > >violate the principles of the free market.
> >
>
> michael, i thought intellectual property rights were central to the
> principles of the free market.  what makes capitalism capitalism is the
> recognition of property rights as inalienable individual rights, the notion
> of private possession, so to speak. Am i wrong? i don't see how they
> constitute a monopoly in the free market or violate the principles of the
> free market. well, capitalism is a monopoly regime of property owners to
> begin with.  what is equally interesting is that monopoly seems to be
> intrinsic to capitalism, rather than accidental.
>
> there are capitalist regimes without intellectual property rights fully
> established or somewhat established, like those economies in the periphery
> or semi periphery of the world system (i.e.., Turkey). they are nonetheless
> still capitalist by virtue of their integration into the world capitalist
> system. The state often justifies monopolies on the grounds that they are
> necessary for achieving economics of scale  in order to privilege corporate
> interests, i.e, private sector monopoly or public sector monopoly.
>
> how does this differ in the US? In addition to the "formal freedom" market,
> is there a monopoly capitalism?
>
> > --
> > >Michael Perelman
> > >Economics Department
> > >California State University
> > >Chico, CA 95929
> >
> > >Tel. 530-898-5321
> > >E-Mail michael@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>
> --
>
> Xxxx Xxxxx Xxxxxx
> PhD Student
> Department of Political Science
> SUNY at Albany
> Nelson A. Rockefeller College
> 135 Western Ave.; Milne 102
> Albany, NY 12222