On Jul 16, 2009, at 2:01 PM, t.piwowar wrote:
On Jul 16, 2009, at 1:36 PM, Matthew Taylor wrote:
By your logic if I invent a widget or widgets and process by which
they are used that grants a new or vastly improved capability and
there by gain a monopoly I am abusing a commons - a commons that
did not exist until I invented it.
Not "by my logic." What I stated is the way it is viewed by
economists.
Demonstrate please. Certainly your wikipedia link does not define
commons as such.
A patent is exactly a limited grant of monopoly rights.
No - it is a limited protection for specific intellectual property. I
can have a patent for a specific type of flying toy, but not
protection for all toys that fly - and the latter is the market -
those buyers and sellers concerned with flying toys.
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.
No - in the end others can make use of the inventor's invention after
the agreed upon exclusive period is over. Other folks still don't get
to sell Widget brand thingamabobs - they can just sell thingamabobs
under their own brand that are copies.
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?
The market is not given away - the patent holder has exclusive
rights to offer a specific thing into the market.
*************************************************************************
** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy **
** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ **
*************************************************************************
