Re: Public/Private

[Ian Murray <seamus2001@xxxxxxxxx>]

----- Original Message -----
From: "David S. Shemano" <dshemano@xxxxxxxxxxx>
To: <PEN-L@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Friday, May 30, 2003 4:11 PM
Subject: Re: Public/Private


> Doug Henwood wrote:
>
> >> >To me, rent-seeking is the attempt to increase profitability through
> >> >the lobbying of the state.
> >>
> >> What about Microsoft's monopoly rents? The state has made them
> >> possible through IP laws, but those are universally applicable; MSFT
> >> has no special legal status.
> >>
> >> Doug
>
> Not a good example for clarity, because the market for intellectual
property is explicitly a creation of the state.  However, to take the
bait, why would it be rent-seeking?  The society has determined that there
should be a market for intellectual property.  The rules preexisted
Microsoft.  Microsoft followed the rules.  If Microsoft lobbied for a
change of the rules, that might be different.  For instance, when Disney
successfully lobbied for an extension of the time copyrighted works are
protected, I think that could be characterized as rent-seeking.  But that
is analytically different than Microsoft benefiting from rules it did not
create.
>
> David Shemano

======================

Yes, MSOFT is a free rider on the struggles and accomplishments of the
past [as are those of us on this list]. The entire history of the temporal
and scale-scope aspects of IPR's since the founding of the Republic have
been the result of rent-seeking and litigation. We won't even go into how
the State helped launch MSOFT on it's way through contracts and taxpayer
subsidized r&d.

Ian