《經(jīng)濟(jì)學(xué)與法律的對(duì)話》課件 3 16 17 Intellectual Property_第1頁(yè)
《經(jīng)濟(jì)學(xué)與法律的對(duì)話》課件 3 16 17 Intellectual Property_第2頁(yè)
《經(jīng)濟(jì)學(xué)與法律的對(duì)話》課件 3 16 17 Intellectual Property_第3頁(yè)
《經(jīng)濟(jì)學(xué)與法律的對(duì)話》課件 3 16 17 Intellectual Property_第4頁(yè)
《經(jīng)濟(jì)學(xué)與法律的對(duì)話》課件 3 16 17 Intellectual Property_第5頁(yè)
已閱讀5頁(yè),還剩10頁(yè)未讀, 繼續(xù)免費(fèi)閱讀

下載本文檔

版權(quán)說(shuō)明:本文檔由用戶(hù)提供并上傳,收益歸屬內(nèi)容提供方,若內(nèi)容存在侵權(quán),請(qǐng)進(jìn)行舉報(bào)或認(rèn)領(lǐng)

文檔簡(jiǎn)介

PropertyvsCommonsThebenefitsoftreatingsomethingaspropertyAmechanismformovingittoitshighestvalueduseAnincentivetomaintainpropertyAnincentivetomakethingsTherightincentiveThecostsoftreatingsomethingaspropertyYouhavetomonitoruseandenforceyourrightsYouhavetobearthecostoftransactingoverit–considertollsvsfreetrespassTheremaybecoststoconvertingunownedresources,suchaswildernessland,topropertyHowImportantIsEachofThese?ThatdependsontheparticularthingthatmightormightnotbepropertyDoesithavetobeproduced?Istherealimitedsupply?Isoveruseaproblem?Howelasticisthesupply?Willnotgettingownershipmuchreduceit?Aretherecoststoassigningpropertyrights?Considerland.ItalsodependsonthetechnologiesforenforcingpropertyrightsConsiderthedifferencebetweenIPthatrequiresaprintingpressandthatdoesn’tTechnologiesfordetectingtrespassers.Burglaralarms.DogsWhatBelongsintheBundle?ConsiderthecaseoflandWhichrightsbelongtogetherWhichrightsareclearlymorevaluabletosomeoneelse?Whicharevaluabletotwoormorepeople?InwhichcaseyoumightgettheinitialassignmentwrongWhichraisesthequestionofhoweasilycanitbefixed?Thatgetsusbacktopropertyvsliability,transactioncosts,andallthatstuffOryoumightfindsomewayofdividingtherighttogiveeachpersontheparthewantsYouhavetherighttodigonyourproperty,exceptthatIhavetherightoflateralsupportOrofdividingitsothatonlythepartvaluabletobothmustbetransactedoverCoalrightsinPennsylvaniaOnlythesupportrightneedbargainingoverPropertyRightsforSpaceAssumewegetmuchbetteratgettingthingsupcheaplyWhatsortofthingsoughttobetreatedasprivateproperty?WherearethebenefitsofpropertyhighThecostslow?Volumeofspace?PhysicalBodiessuchasAsteroids?Orbits?GeosynchronousorbitsarealreadyascarcegoodSolidAngleontheSun?GlobalWarmingCurrentlyacommons:anyoneisfreetoputCO2intheair.Supposewebelievethatisaproblem,wanttochangeit.How?Propertyrights:Youcan’tputCO2intheairIfitaffectsmebyraisingglobaltemperature,sealevelUnlessyouhavemypermissionLiabilityrule:Ifyoudo,youpaymedamagesbasedontheharmtomePigouviantax:CarbontaxRegulationWhataretheproblemswitheach?Propertyrightssolution:Nobodycanlightamatch.Breathout?Lifeends.Liabilityrule:Ihavetosueyoufordamagesof.000001cent?Carbontax:Problemofestimatingtheexternality,monitoringCO2output.DirectRegulation:NeedpermissiontodoalmosteverythingUsualproblemsofinformationneededbytheregulatorsIncentivesoftheregulators—lotsofopportunitiesforcorruptionofvarioussortsIntellectualPropertyCopyrightislonglastingandeasytoget,patentshortandhard.Why?CopyrightisbettersuitedtobepropertybecauseItiseasiertomarkandobserveboundariesYoueitherdidordidnotcopymychapterAndifyoudidit’seasytoproveAccidentalviolationisunlikely,forthesamereasonthat…Thereisnoproblemofdepletingthecommons.TherearesomanypossiblebooksSomeoneputamillionmonkeysonamilliontypewriterstotrytowrite“Hamlet”Afteramillionyears,thebesttheyhadcomeupwithwas“Tobeornottobe,thatisthegrglflx"IfIdidn’twritemine,nobodyelsewouldSoIamremovinganegligibleamountfromthecommonsofbookstobewrittenButallofthisisforprotectionagainstliteralcopyingLookandfeelandderivativeworksraisemoreofaproblemBecausetheyhavefuzzierboundariesPatentisworsesuitedtobepropertybecauseBoundariesarefuzzyandinvisiblePatentracesareevidenceofaproblemofdepletingthecommonsofideastobeinventedWhatistheRightIncentivetoCreateIP?ItdependsonthevalueproducedbytheIPConsiderthealternativeofusingasystemofrewardsHowdoyoudecidehowmuchrewardeachbookorinventiondeserves?Patentandcopyrightprovideanautomaticsolutiontothatproblem,sinceHowmuchpeoplewillpayyoutouseitevidenceofitsvalueButthereisacosttothatmethodMarginalcostofonemoreuseofanideaorexpressioniszeroButthelicensingfeeismorethanzero,sothereisadeadweightcostPeoplewhovalueitatmorethanMCbutlessthanthepricedon’tgetitItalsodependsonhowsoonsomeoneelsewouldproducethesameIPWhynotpermanentcopyrightprotection,sincenobodyelsewouldeverwritemybook?Thereisatradeoffbetweenalittlemoreincentive,andthedeadweightcostofmonopolyThesameargumentimpliesthatpatenttermshouldbeshorterthanthesimplerule“setincentivetoproduceequaltovalueofwhatisbeingproduced”impliesLouisKaplowwroteanarticlepointingthisout.Iwrotethesamearticleataboutthesametime,onlymysubjectwascriminalpunishment—theincentivenottocommitacrimeTheargumentinbothcaseswasthatincentivesarenotfree.Ifanincreaseinincentivethatcausestendollarsmorevaluecoststwentydollars…Orlessharminmycase(alaterchapter)TheExceptionstoCopyrightProtectionScenesafairedoctrineIfthereisonlyoneway,orafewways,ofsayingsomethingSayingsomethinginthatwayisnotprotectedBecausecopyrightingthatwaywoulddepletethecommonsFairUseexceptionSmallinfringementscostmoretotransactoverthantheyareworthAndsomeusesarebelievedtoproducepositiveexternalities,soimplicitlysubsidizedattheexpenseofthecopyrightholderBytreating(some)educationalandscientificusesasfairuseButthereisaproblemoffuzzybordersRequirementsforPatentProtectionNoveltyIftheideaisalreadyknownNothingofvaluehasbeenproducedNon-obviousnessIfanyonewhoneedstheideacaneasilyhiresomeonetoproduceitNotmuchofvaluehasbeenproducedNotworthmorethansixmonthsofprotection—whichisn’tanoptionUsefulness.Olddefinition:NotperniciousStory:“anewinventiontopoisonpeople,ortopromotedebauchery,ortofacilitateprivateassassination,isnotapatentableinvention”Soviagrashouldnotbepatentable,JamesBonddevicesareRicardvsDuBon:“It’spernicious,sothepatentIaminfringingisinvalid”Butnotillegal,soIshouldbeabletodoittoo”Argumentfortheolddefinition:Iftheinventorwantstowastemoneygettingapatentonsomethingnobodywantstodo,whyshouldweobject?Newdefinition:Uselessmeansnotuseful.Yet.Kitch’sProspectTheoryofPatentTherearetworeasonstogiveaprospectorrightstowhathefindsOneistorewardhim,givehimanincentivetofinditTheotheristocreateapropertyrightthatcanbeusedtobetterdevelopwhathefindsConsiderthecommonpoolproblemappliedtogoldorsilverminingTheoredoesn’tflowlikeoilorgasButknowingwhereyouhavefoundittellsmewheretodig—nexttoyourholeWhichnotonlyreducesyourincentivebutwastesresourcesEdmundKitcharguedthatthesameappliedtopatentsAninventionrequiresfurtherdevelopment,otherinventionsThepatentholderhastheincentiveandabilitytocoordinatethatprocessJustashomesteadingturnspubliclandintoprivatepropertyMakingitpossibletoinvestinimprovingitCoordinateusesofitPatentsviewedashomesteadingideaspaceTheArgumentAgainstIntellectualPropertyInthe19thcentury,therewereseriousargumentsagainstIPSomemadebypeoplewhosawitasinconsistentwithliberalfreemarketprinciplesSwitzerlanddidnothavepatentlawuntil1907BoldrinandLevine,TheCaseAgainstIntellectualMonopolyOneargumentisthedeadweightlossofchargingwhenMCiszeroInaddition,theyarguethatpatentlawretardsinnovationThefirstinventorcanblockimprovementsonhisinventionTheyclaimthatsteamtechnologieswasfrozenuntiltheWattpatentexpiredWhichraisesthequestionofwhyhedidn’tlicensetheimprovementsTheydescribemechanismsfordealingwiththefreeriderproblemSinceinvestorsincoalminestypicallydiversifiedtomanymines,theydidn’tmindifimproveddesignsinoneminegotcopiedinothersAndthefirstinventorgenerallyhassomefirstmoveradvantagesJusttheoppositeofKitch’sapproach,arguingcommonsarebetterforideaspaceComputerLawIsacomputerprogramawriting?SourcecodeonpaperobviouslyisWhataboutmachinelanguagecodeburnedintoaROM?ThecourtsdisagreedontheanswerTheprecedentwasaplayerpianorollRulednottobecoveredbycopyrightEventually,CongresssteppedintolegislatetheanswerTherightsolutionbutthewrongquestionNot“isaprogramawriting?”butDoesaprogramhavethecharacteristicsthatmakecopyrightappropriateforwritings?Theanswerisitdoes–hardtocreate,easytoreproduce,unlikelytobyaccident,…ReproducingthePCROMs:WhytheyneededtodoitCopyingwouldviolatecopyright,butindependentcreationdidn’tSotheyusedthecleanroomapproachPerhapstheyshouldhavecopiedandclaimedthescenesafaireexceptionTherebeingonlyonewayofwritingtheROMsthatwouldrunthePCprogramsTheDeathofCopyrightSofar,IhaveassumedthatcopyrightiseasytoenforceItisifcopyingisdonebyfirmswithprintingpresses,easytofindandworthsuingButnowthatanyonecaneasilycopydigitalworksandsharethemDigitalcopyrightislargelyunenforceable.Possibleexceptions?SoftwareusedbylargeorganizationswhoseemployeescouldbetraythemforpiratingFancydigitalrightsmanagementschemestomakesharingharder,but…AnyprotectionofaworkfullyrevealedinoneuseisbrokenbytheanalogholePlaythecopyprotectedsongintoarecorderthendigitizeit—nowitisoutofprotectionWhatsortofworksarenotfullyrevealedinuse?AdatabasesuchasWestlawAgamesuchasWorldofWarcraftSohowdoyougetpaidtocreateIP?Patronage–the18thcenturysolutionCharity–Patreon.Thesametechnologymakessmallscaledonationseasy.Tie-ins—webyourbooksforfree,chargeforspeechesorconsultingOtherideas?ExamplesofIPThatAlreadyWorksThatWayTheacademicworldYoudon’tgetpaidtowritejournalarticlesInsomefieldsyouhavetopaythejournalYourrewardisinthepositionorpromotionyougetfrompublicationMoregenerallythereputationyougetOpensourcesoftwareContributingtoaprojecthelpsestablishcredentialsasaprogrammer,getsyouajobFirmsthatuseopen

溫馨提示

  • 1. 本站所有資源如無(wú)特殊說(shuō)明,都需要本地電腦安裝OFFICE2007和PDF閱讀器。圖紙軟件為CAD,CAXA,PROE,UG,SolidWorks等.壓縮文件請(qǐng)下載最新的WinRAR軟件解壓。
  • 2. 本站的文檔不包含任何第三方提供的附件圖紙等,如果需要附件,請(qǐng)聯(lián)系上傳者。文件的所有權(quán)益歸上傳用戶(hù)所有。
  • 3. 本站RAR壓縮包中若帶圖紙,網(wǎng)頁(yè)內(nèi)容里面會(huì)有圖紙預(yù)覽,若沒(méi)有圖紙預(yù)覽就沒(méi)有圖紙。
  • 4. 未經(jīng)權(quán)益所有人同意不得將文件中的內(nèi)容挪作商業(yè)或盈利用途。
  • 5. 人人文庫(kù)網(wǎng)僅提供信息存儲(chǔ)空間,僅對(duì)用戶(hù)上傳內(nèi)容的表現(xiàn)方式做保護(hù)處理,對(duì)用戶(hù)上傳分享的文檔內(nèi)容本身不做任何修改或編輯,并不能對(duì)任何下載內(nèi)容負(fù)責(zé)。
  • 6. 下載文件中如有侵權(quán)或不適當(dāng)內(nèi)容,請(qǐng)與我們聯(lián)系,我們立即糾正。
  • 7. 本站不保證下載資源的準(zhǔn)確性、安全性和完整性, 同時(shí)也不承擔(dān)用戶(hù)因使用這些下載資源對(duì)自己和他人造成任何形式的傷害或損失。

最新文檔

評(píng)論

0/150

提交評(píng)論