scholarly journals Property, Intellectual Property, and Free Riding

2004 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mark A. Lemley
Keyword(s):  
Intellectual Property ◽  
Free Riding

scholarly journals El monopolio de las ideas: Contra la Propiedad Intelectual

2021 ◽  
pp. 47-104
Author(s):  
Albert Esplugas
Keyword(s):  
Intellectual Property ◽  
Public Good ◽  
Key Words ◽  
Market Economy ◽  
Private Property ◽  
Free Riding ◽  
Point Of View ◽  
Private Property Rights ◽  
Original Meaning ◽  
Palabras Clave

This paper presents a critique of intellectual property from an ethical and economical point of view. Once patents and copyrights are characterized as a monopolies of ideas, it is argued that intellectual pro-perty violates private property rights in its original meaning and it is not based in real scarcity but creates artificial scarcity instead. In addition, the paper challenges intellectual property as an incentive to innovation and studies the several costs of this kind of regulation. Eventually, diffe-rent market alternatives to tackle the free-riding problem are explored. Key words: intelectual property, patents, copyrights, private property, scar-city, public good, innovation incentives, market economy. Clasificación JEL: O310, O320, O340, H410. Resumen: En este trabajo se presenta una crítica a la propiedad intelec-tual desde una perspectiva ética y económica. Tras caracterizar las paten-tes y los copyrights como monopolios sobre ideas, se arguye que la pro-piedad intelectual viola el derecho de propiedad privada en su sentido tradicional y crea una escasez artificial en lugar de fundarse sobre la esca-sez. Se cuestiona, asimismo, que la propiedad intelectual suponga un incen-tivo a la creación, estudiando los distintos costes de una regulación de este tipo. Por último se mencionan varias alternativas de mercado para hacer frente a los problemas de free-riding. Palabras clave: propiedad intelectual, patentes, copyrights, propiedad privada, escasez, bien público, incentivos a la innovación, mercado.

scholarly journals Collective Goods, Free Riding and Country Brands: The Chinese Experience

2008 ◽  
Vol 4 (2) ◽  
pp. 211-223 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jay B. Barney ◽  
Shujun Zhang
Keyword(s):  
Intellectual Property ◽  
Adverse Effects ◽  
Free Riding ◽  
Average Quality ◽  
Collective Goods ◽  
Country Brand ◽  
The Government ◽  
The Stability

Company brands signify a message to consumers about the quality and value of a product. Countries can also be branded. However, unlike the brands of individual firms, country brands are collective goods. The nature of country brands creates the possibility of free riding, where individual firms benefit – in terms of price or access – from the promise made by a country brand but deliver at a level lower than what is promised by the brand. Such free riding threatens the stability of what the country brand represents unless legal, governmental, or other institutions engage in activities to reduce these adverse effects. In this paper, we investigate the Chinese brand – once standing for average quality at a low price – in the light of recent recalls. We examine how country brands emerge and the incentives that firms operating in a country have to either support or not support a country brand. We also explore the implications of diese incentives for the role of various institutions, including the government, in developing, maintaining and changing a country brand and in developing and enforcing the policies, such as protection of intellectual property, necessary to support firms' efforts toward reinforcing a trusted country brand.

scholarly journals An Assessment of Intellectual Property Legislative Framework on Violations of Protected Goods

2021 ◽  
Vol 4 (1) ◽  
pp. 1-18
Author(s):  
Godfrey Thenga
Keyword(s):  
South Africa ◽  
Intellectual Property ◽  
Property Rights ◽  
Free Riding ◽  
Financial Loss ◽  
Legislative Framework ◽  
The Law ◽  
The Government

Infringement of intellectual property is a violation of protected rights. Intellectual property is an asset owned by businesses and forms part of a trade. In South Africa, the Constitution and other legislation guarantee ownership of property. The rights to ownership of protected property are affected when criminals misappropriate property. This abuse is evident when the protected property is divested from its lawful owners and sold at a profit to disadvantage the owners. This has the potential of devaluing protected property and contributes to the financial loss of the owners. The abuse ultimately discourages innovation and creativity in businesses. The government is responsible for protecting property rights; the positive spin-off is the taxes that benefit the country. Poor protection encourages free-riding behavior where unscrupulous criminals misuse the intellectual property for their benefit. This study assessed the effectiveness of various legislation that protects property interests. It further highlighted poor enforcement of the law.

scholarly journals Property, Intellectual Property, and Free Riding

2016 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mark Lemley
Keyword(s):  
Economic Theory ◽  
Intellectual Property ◽  
Tragedy Of The Commons ◽  
Free Riding ◽  
Free Riders ◽  
The Commons

Courts and scholars have increasingly assumed that intellectual property isa form of property, and have applied the economic insights of HaroldDemsetz and other property theorists to condemn the use of intellectualproperty by others as "free riding." In this article, I argue that thisrepresents a fundamental misapplication of the economic theory of property.The economics of property is concerned with internalizing negativeexternalities - harms that one person's use of land does to another'sinterest to it, as in the familiar tragedy of the commons. But theexternalities in intellectual property are positive, not negative, andproperty theory offers little or no justification for internalizingpositive externalities. Indeed, doing so is at odds with the logic andfunctioning of the market. From this core insight, I proceed to explain whyfree riding is desirable in intellectual property cases except in limitedcircumstances where curbing it is necessary to encourage creativity. Iexplain why economic theory demonstrates that too much protection is justas bad as not enough protection, and therefore why intellectual propertylaw must search for balance, not free riders. Finally, I consider whetherwe would be better served by another metaphor than the misused notion ofintellectual property as a form of tangible property.

Patents in the History of the Semiconductor Industry

2021 ◽  
pp. 27-68
Author(s):  
Alexander Galetovic
Keyword(s):  
Intellectual Property ◽  
Business Models ◽  
Semiconductor Industry ◽  
Free Riding ◽  
Fast Growth ◽  
Vertical Specialization ◽  
Multifactor Productivity ◽  
History Of ◽  
Differential Ability ◽  
Over Time

Chips can be easily copied and semiconductor firms are not monopolies. Nevertheless, in the semiconductor industry patents protect Ricardian rents against free riding. Ricardian rents—rents wrought by a firm’s differential ability to produce more output or value per unit of input—remunerate the investments in R&D that semiconductor firms make in the expectation of profit. In addition, patents enlarge the set of business models, strategies, and contracts that firms can use to trade. Many practices that emerged over time—for example technical marketing, second sourcing, licensing, trade in intellectual property—and the observed evolution of horizontal and vertical specialization would not have been feasible without patents. Last, patents and Ricardian rents in the semiconductor industry conciliate protracted investments in R&D with exceptionally fast growth of multifactor productivity and falling prices over almost 70 years.

scholarly journals Owning Mark(et)s

2016 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mark Lemley
Keyword(s):  
Intellectual Property ◽  
Empirical Data ◽  
Free Riding ◽  
Real Property ◽  
Trademark Law ◽  
Legitimate Interests ◽  
The Law

Trademark owners regularly rely on claims that the defendant is “freeriding” on their mark by making money using that mark, foreclosing anopportunity for the trademark owner to capture that revenue. We analyzethose free riding claims and find them wanting. The empirical data showsthat defendants in unrelated markets can benefit from using a well‐knownmark, but that neither mark owners nor consumers suffer any injury fromthat use. A legal claim that a defendant is unjustly benefiting by using aplaintiff’s mark is hollow unless it is accompanied by a theory of why thatbenefit should rightly belong to the plaintiff. And unlike real property,or even other types of intellectual property, trademark law has no suchtheory. The result is that free riding claims fall back on emptycircularity. Those free riding arguments are - explicitly or implicitly -behind the most problematic expansions of trademark law in recent years. Wesuggest that trademark law needs a theory of trademark injury thatdistinguishes harm to legitimate interests the law should protect from amere desire to capture a benefit enjoyed by another.

scholarly journals THE EXTENSION OF GEOGRAPHICAL INDICATION PROTECTION: NECESSARY FOR DEVELOPING COUNTRY

2015 ◽  
Vol 26 (3) ◽  
pp. 505
Author(s):  
Mas Rahmah
Keyword(s):  
Developing Countries ◽  
Intellectual Property ◽  
Property Rights ◽  
Market Power ◽  
Developing Country ◽  
Intellectual Property Rights ◽  
Free Riding ◽  
Geographical Indication ◽  
Regional Investment ◽  
Related Aspect

This paper analyses the need of extension of Geographical Indication (GI) protection since the current protection under Trade Related Aspect of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS) is insufficient to cover all products as a result of discriminatory provisions in TRIPS regulating a greater protection to wines and spirits only and different level of GI protection under Article 22 and Article 23 TRIPS. This paper then assumes that the extensive GI protection for all products should be supported because it would give greater benefits particularly to developing countries such as prevent the free riding, attract regional investment and obtain market power. Perlindungan Indikasi Geografis (IG) perlu diperluas tidak hanya pada produk tertentu seperti wines danspiritskarena perlindungan IG diatur di dalam TRIPS tidak cukup memberikan perlindungan kepada semua produk sebagai akibat perbedaan pengaturan di TRIPS yang memberikan perlindungan lebih kepada wines danspirits saja dan adanya perbedaan tingkat perlindungan pada Pasal 22 dan 23 TRIPS. Perluasan perlindungan IG harus didukung karena akan memberikan manfaat khususnya kepada negara berkembang. Perluasan perlindungan IG dapat melarang pemboncengan reputasi, menarik investasi dan meningkatkan kekuatan produk negara berkembang di pasaran.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document