> Not "by my logic." What I stated is the way it is viewed by *some* economists.
FTFY > A patent is exactly a limited grant of monopoly rights. It is a deal > made between society and inventors so that the society may benefit > from the work of inventors. Each contributes something of value so > that a deal may be struck. In the end the patent expires and the > inventor must return their exclusive part of the market to the Commons. I defy you to find the term "commons" in any patent materials. It's a temporary gummint charter designed to protect proprietary ideas, while encouraging innovation and balancing against the need for economic vibrancy. It's a compromise, like most political creatures. > For those that claim that the market is not a thing, your example is > a great counter-example. If the market were not a thing then how > could it be given away in a patent-grant transaction? They aren't. Patents are a charter *for a specific design* of a product. It's not a license for a monopoly. Anyone can compete against you with similar or alternative products. ************************************************************************* ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ ** *************************************************************************
