On account of my article “Capitalism, Free Markets and Patents: Grounds for a Major Policy Revision“, I received a list of arguments that do not support my proposal.
I have decided to opt for a three part discussion of my earlier piece. In the first part I deal with simple economic theory. Its function is to summarize what is important to remember when any economic framework is discussed. This part focuses on market capitalism and what mechanisms are at hand. Its objective is to establish a clear view on economics and its terminology. It sheds light on the context of my proposal.
Part II discusses the arguments made for and against my proposal. This part discusses all the arguments made during an interesting conversation I had over the e-mail. It covers a wide range of key factors determining the added value of this proposal, as it covers the arguments against it. Upfront it is probably most fair to state that I stick to my proposal. Part II clarifies my position in much greater detail. If you were not convinced by the original article, I hope discussing the merits of these arguments will convince you to demand a major policy revision. My apologies upfront for the length of part II. Continue reading “Revisiting: “Capitalism, Free Markets and Patents: Grounds for a Major Policy Revision””
In the original article on the patent-framework I summarized a few points that provided a basis to conclude (1) the current patent-framework is flawed, (2) put forward two preconditions that policy-revisions must meet, (3) defined a proposal to change the patent-framework, and (4) briefly explained why such a change will stimulate progress.
Most people consider patents to have emerged as a means to stimulate inventions. However, this is not the case. Originally, patents have emerged in a two-fold manner. Patents emerged as a reward for providing products or services that were thought of as strategically important (to the kingdom), not necessarily new. Beside, patents (in Italy and England, but also as guilds in the Netherlands) emerged as a means to limit competition and favor some people. This was nothing different, and still is not any different, than a pure form of state-initiated discrimination.
Patents eventually were set – for a period of time, nowadays 20 years – to accommodate inventors to profit from their inventions exclusively. The element of new (to the marketplace, or more practically, new to the patent registry) was added. But, the element of exclusivity remained institutionalized. Continue reading “Part II – Arguing the Patent-Framework”
Among the many economic problems of today one important issue has been receiving lesser attention. Of course the credit-crisis is more appealing and necessitating serious attention because of its detrimental impact it has and potentially will have for the world economy in the coming months and years.
However, this article focuses on another major issue: the international patent framework. This article sets out a necessary policy revision, which ultimately provides necessary economic incentives in case of a financial meltdown.
One pervasive misconception on market capitalism is that our economies are driven by free markets. Despite a couple of centuries of economic science and theory, free markets have still not been established. The capitalist markets of today are not synonymous with free markets. The globalization of market capitalism of today is more synonymous with oligopolistic markets and at times even with monopolistic markets. If capitalism can be saved its cure is found with laws and regulations that aim for free markets to emerge. One of these policy revisions enabling this goal, concerns an adjustment in our patent-framework.
Continue reading “Capitalism, Free Markets and Patents: Grounds For A Major Policy Revision”