This setting lets you change the way you view articles. You can choose to have articles open in a dialog window, a new tab, or directly in the same window.
Open in Dialog
Open in New Tab
Open in same window
Open in New Tab
Open in same window
Journal of Economic Perspectives: Vol. 27 No. 1 (Winter 2013)
JEP Volume. 27, Issue 1 | 
Previous ArticleNext Article
Sign up for Email Alerts Follow us on Twitter
Full-text Article (Complimentary)
View Comments on This Article (1) | Login to post a comment
Previous ArticleNext Article
Expand
Quick Tools:
Print Article Summary Email Link to this Article Export CitationSign up for Email Alerts Follow us on Twitter
Explore:
The Case against Patents
Article Citation
Boldrin, Michele, and
David K. Levine. 2013. "The Case against Patents."
Journal of Economic Perspectives,
27(1): 3-22.
DOI: 10.1257/jep.27.1.3
DOI: 10.1257/jep.27.1.3
Abstract
The case against patents can be summarized briefly: there is no empirical evidence that they serve to increase innovation and productivity, unless productivity is identified with the number
of patents awarded—which, as evidence shows, has no correlation with measured productivity. Both theory and evidence suggest that while patents can have a partial equilibrium effect of
improving incentives to invent, the general equilibrium effect on innovation can be negative. A properly designed patent system might serve to increase innovation at a certain time and place. Unfortunately, the political economy of government-operated patent systems indicates that such systems are susceptible to pressures that cause the ill effects of patents to grow over time. Our preferred policy solution is to abolish patents entirely and to find other legislative instruments, less open to lobbying and rent seeking, to foster innovation when there is clear evidence that laissez-faire undersupplies it. However, if that policy change seems too large to swallow, we discuss in the conclusion a set of partial reforms that could be implemented.
Article Full-Text Access
Full-text Article (Complimentary)
Authors
Boldrin, Michele (Washington U in St Louis and Federal Reserve Bank of St Louis)
Levine, David K. (Washington U in St Louis and Federal Reserve Bank of St Louis)
Levine, David K. (Washington U in St Louis and Federal Reserve Bank of St Louis)
JEL Classifications
K11: Property Law
O31: Innovation and Invention: Processes and Incentives
O33: Technological Change: Choices and Consequences; Diffusion Processes
O34: Intellectual Property Rights
O31: Innovation and Invention: Processes and Incentives
O33: Technological Change: Choices and Consequences; Diffusion Processes
O34: Intellectual Property Rights
Comments
View Comments on This Article (1) | Login to post a comment
Posted By: TERENCE M DWYER (Lawyer and economist)
Date: 2013-05-06 07:29:08
John Stuart Mill remarked that the laws on private property do not conform to the justification for it. Patents have no logical justification. My attack is set out in the following submission 001 to the Australian Productivity Commission and I note they did not answer the arguments. http://www.pc.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0009/118764/sub01-patents.pdf Dr Terry Dwyer Dwyer Lawyers
Submission against patents