Quote:
Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
What you say here ignores the fact that there are almost always alternatives to a patent right. more importanly, you question the basic underpinning of why the country benefits from patents.
|
Lord knows I'm not an economist, but I thought it was obvious to all that patent law exists in almost perfect counterpoise to antitrust law, from which the country also benefits. Supposebly we limit patents to particular kinds of inventions in order to address the specific concern that some incentive to innovate would slip if (1) there are high costs of innovation and (2) there were low barriers to market entry and therefore a free rider problem. Otherwise, our natural disinclination toward monopoly would win the day and we would allow people to manufacture Viagra and Claritin if they can do it more cheaply.
"Monopolies are very bad for the marketplace, except when the product is patentable under 35 U.S.C. § 101, in which case they're very good for the marketplace" is a position that puts a lot of faith in Congress and 36 words, which is uncharacteristic of you.
