Customer Reviews

Against Intellectual Monopoly

5 star:		(4)
4 star:		(13)
3 star:		(3)
2 star:		(1)
1 star:		(1)

 

 

This book, which you must must must read, will challenge everything you think you believe about IP. In fact, I don't think any serious can come away from it thinking the same way about this subject. It is not only a wholesale shredding of the rationale of patent and copyright (which is radical enough); it also suggests a new historiographical project that would revise the entire history of innovation as well as a new social theory project that would add the social force of emulation as an important ingredient to what makes up the thriving civilization.

I've read widely on this topic, and this book makes other treatments seem amateurish. This is pioneering material here that offers a profound challenge to right and left, to economists and historians, to political philosophers and art critics. In short, this book changes everything.

Everyone who has ever considered this topic or the history of economic development must stop what he or she is doing and carefully consider the contents of this volume. Let it sink in for a while. The thesis takes a while to settle in.

Let me add that I have my doubts that other online reviewers have really gone through the book in detail, or read it at all. This is really shabby and pathetic. If you read one book closely this year, make it this one.

First, I have not read the book in this form. I read a free version online. There might be some differences; I don't know.

Anyway-
I was pointed to this book while arguing that intellectual property is needed to overcome a public goods problem. After reading it, I've moved from confidently supporting minimal IP rights to tentatively advocating their abolition.

The authors provide plenty of evidence and a few intriguing theoretical arguments to bolster their position.

It definitely won't be the last word on this subject, but it will widen the debate and point it in new directions. Very much worth reading, if you're interested in IP issues.

Before continuing, you should know that I also read the free copy available online, not the print book.

The book is a simple and clear set of reasoned arguments against the existence of intellectual monopoly. Boldrin and Levine are careful to distinguish between intellectual property rights and intellectual monopoly: intellectual property is argued to be just as important as other property rights, while they eventually equate intellectual property to something close to public theft.

No difficult math or statistics are employed, so the average reader will be able to understand the arguments and agree or disagree. Each chapter also includes references to statistical and mathematical treatments of the subjects, although I wish they'd included brief outlines of these in an appendix.

The ideas themselves are impressively simple. Arguments in favor of intellectual monopoly can be made to seem very obvious. Arguments against intellectual monopoly can be a little complicated. It's easy to say that patents and copyrights are necessary to pay back authors and inventors for their risks and creativity. But how much should they be payed back? And does it occur without government intervention in the forms of patents and copyrights? Does piracy actually put the legitimate creators and inventors out of business?

One striking example from the book was the Linux company Red Hat, which distributes the open-source Linux platform and provides support. Its pirating competitors sell the same thing for cheaper (and indeed, the whole thing is available for free!) and yet Red Hat has grown and its competitors have shrunken or disappeared altogether. Boldrin and Levine point out that while something may be free, people are still willing to pay for other peoples' knowledge. There is value in knowledge, and consumers don't always have the time to educate themselves. Those with a background in economics will remind themselves immediately that there is no such thing as a free lunch: even pirated material has an opportunity cost of time, or might require a certain level of knowledge. Another interesting example was the pornography industry. Here is an industry that has always been a constant target of piracy, yet it continues to grow!

Boldrin and Levine have managed to simplify the arguments into clean examples and easy statistics. Unfortunately, I find that when the statistics do not go in their favor they are more likely to wave away the outliers than attempt to explain them, a choice I find leaves their argument looking weaker than it might otherwise be.

Overall, the book is a pretty quick read that will inform you of several arguments in the anti-monopoly position. The writing is clear and direct. Boldrin and Levine also have an off-beat sense of humor, which at times made me smile but mostly made me grimace.

Recommended to anybody interested in this current debate, regardless of the side of the debate on which you may fall.

This book changed my view of intellectual monopoly from somewhat in favor to somewhat opposed. The empirical arguments used convinced me that the current patent and copyright system is flawed. I found the book easy to read and the examples used were pretty interesting. Boldrin and Levine start the book by debunking some of the "myths" about the industrial revolution, claiming that patents actually hindered its development. They go on to look at how a number of industries (software, music, movies, pharmaceuticals, among others) have been affected by patents. By comparing these industries with and without patents and copyrights the authors conclude that intellectual property is used largely for rent seeking. They take issue with the "intellectual property apologist" who defends intellectual property as necessary for innovation. Boldrin and Levine argue that innovation is a function of multiple small changes that individuals make to a preexisting idea, and that patents actually stifle innovation. Their arguments are easy to follow because they use very simple economic theory, and rely on empirical evidence. This might be a turnoff for someone who is looking for a more rigorous critique of intellectual property, but for this book I feel that the style worked. The authors did take their argument a bit too far by the end when they began to make it sound as though intellectual monopoly was going to be the end of the economy, but this didn't really take that much away from my enjoyment of the book.

Against Intellectual Monopoly by Boldrin and Levine is a straightforward and persuasive book detailing the burden that strong property rights place on the market. They begin with a startling example, that of James Watt and his steam engine, detailing how strong property rights actually served to slow progress during the Industrial Revolution. The strength of this book lies in its ability to be read and understood by the average, non-economist. Boldrin and Levine prove their point through the use of case studies that are both relevant to today's economy and play a large role in society. They take their argument through each logical stage, refuting common misconceptions in a straightforward manner. They not only directly state their opponents' viewpoints and refute them, but do so with a clear and thoroughly explained example. This book is extremely relevant to the ongoing debate over IP and raises issues and questions that I had thought of as fact before reading this book. Although repetitive at times and perhaps frustrating for a seasoned economist, Against Intellectual Monopoly provides strong evidence in the debate against IP rights that is clearly explained, logically and persuasively presented, and accessible to a wide audience.

In Against Intellectual Monopoly, authors Levine and Boldrin attempt to expose the "evils" of intellectual monopoly -namely the ways in which they distort markets and perpetuate economic efficiency. Much of the book is also devoted to debunking the myths that intellectual monopoly both protects and advances innovation. I found their arguments particularly effective in their discussion about Linux software providers. I felt this example was emblematic of the authors' greater message. The source code for Linux is public information and different companies have taken this code and produced their own operating system software. Red Hat is one such firm, and even though they charge a much higher price than competitors, they are still a market leader because of the quality of their product. The Linux example is proof that markets operate efficiently even without patents and intellectual property. Of course the author believes such markets are inherently more efficient without such regulation.
The book is also effective because the authors generally build their argument throughout the book--and still pay some credence to the arguments in favor of intellectual monopoly. Their copious use of case studies from many different time periods legitimizes their argument. The one issue I primarily with their argument is that developing countries do not have sound economic institutions to support market competition, and thus intellectual property may serve as a means of protecting the development of industry. These countries are bereft with corruption and have unstable political and economic infrastructures, so I don't know if competition would be able to run smoothly as the authors believe it should. I would have liked to have seen more case studies of intellectual monopoly in third world countries. Overall, a great read. Very cogent accessible writing and a strong, clear message.

Boldrin and Levine expose the lies of copyrights, patents, and other IP laws. Although not the most exciting read, it does do a wonderful job at presenting the case against IPLs and how society would be better off without them. In my opinion, their solutions don't go far enough, but are a step in the right direction. For any economist, politician, or socially concerned individual, this is a worthwhile read. A few highlights: The Wright Brothers were NOT first in flight. Patents actually DECREASE innovation. The medical industry does NOT need patents to make money. Many companies make a profit by not patenting and actually have "PatentLefts" which make it illegal to patent anything related to the product (see Red Hat and Linux).

It is a book written in a form which mocks its initial bias against intellectual monopoly. This recognition, gives the authors an incentive to write in a form that is both witty and preoccupied with providing a sure footing to each assertion and argument.

In terms of the content, is an interesting book quoted several times by prominent academics such as Prof. Eli Salzberger (see his 2011 article "The dominant Law and Economics paradigm regarding "Intellectual Property" - a vehicle or an obstacle for innovation, growth and progress?"). This means that in terms of the ongoing debate over the validity of intellectual property rights (IPRs) - when measured against gains for both producers and consumers - it presents the most contemporary analysis and critique against the dominant paradigm that sustains IPRs in the developed world.

In sum, is a short read, yet full with content and accessible to pretty much anyone... Enjoy!

Against Intellectual Monopoly contains some absolute gems of insight and analysis, and altogether makes some very persuasive arguments against copyright and patent protections. The problem is that these gems are buried randomly among its 300-plus pages. The book reads more like the world's longest abstract. The table of contents may very well have been an afterthought. General impressions are haphazardly mixed with studied opinions and facts.

This lack of consistency and rigor--both literary and logical--detracts from the overall punch. I, for one, am thoroughly convinced. But I'm an easy sell. Unfortunately this book is unlikely to convert intellectual property proponents or fence sitters. It's something of a missed opportunity, though I certainly appreciate and commend the authors' efforts at writing for a lay audience.

The authors argument makes the distinction between supporting property rights for ideas, which the authors do support, and the government granted monopoly over competition that leads to efficiency loss. The authors argue this monopoly has two main negative effects. First, the monopoly prevents competitors from offering a competitive product or innovating, which lowers the return to society. Second, inventors spend more time suing for patent infringement than they do selling their product, again leading to a worse social outcome than otherwise.

What struck me most about their argument concerned the pre-copyright world. In this world, Sophocles still writes plays, Plato still thinks, and Newton still revolutionizes science. Humans, they argue, do not need IP protection to create ideas. This line of reasoning resonates with me.

Despite my support for their argument, it seems too good to be true. If they were right, why wouldn't society respond with significant changes to IP law?