Buy new:
$99.00$99.00
Delivery Friday, August 2
Ships from: Amazon.com Sold by: Amazon.com
Buy new:
$99.00$99.00
Delivery Friday, August 2
Ships from: Amazon.com
Sold by: Amazon.com
Save with Used - Good
$6.96$6.96
This item cannot be shipped to your selected delivery location. Please choose a different delivery location.
Ships from: glenthebookseller Sold by: glenthebookseller
Save with Used - Good
$6.96$6.96
This item cannot be shipped to your selected delivery location. Please choose a different delivery location.
Ships from: glenthebookseller
Sold by: glenthebookseller
Download the free Kindle app and start reading Kindle books instantly on your smartphone, tablet, or computer - no Kindle device required.
Read instantly on your browser with Kindle for Web.
Using your mobile phone camera - scan the code below and download the Kindle app.
Follow the author
Something went wrong. Please try your request again later.
OK
Against Intellectual Monopoly 1st Edition
by
Michele Boldrin
(Author),
David K. Levine
(Author)
Sorry, there was a problem loading this page. Try again.
{"desktop_buybox_group_1":[{"displayPrice":"$99.00","priceAmount":99.00,"currencySymbol":"$","integerValue":"99","decimalSeparator":".","fractionalValue":"00","symbolPosition":"left","hasSpace":false,"showFractionalPartIfEmpty":true,"offerListingId":"qAlOUs%2Fy32zKUqnPYf7kCsZ%2F%2BxWesw5wmksMXy1FQcg%2FclkIxia%2BYFtSKs39V%2BHkoaCoHWupDVJ7NF6RQXwREhtX4ObKAUxiy%2FFIdchKvB38X8yHMPHNtLrQo%2FTxpI6l%2FEdJ7y3rtyg%3D","locale":"en-US","buyingOptionType":"NEW","aapiBuyingOptionIndex":0}, {"displayPrice":"$6.96","priceAmount":6.96,"currencySymbol":"$","integerValue":"6","decimalSeparator":".","fractionalValue":"96","symbolPosition":"left","hasSpace":false,"showFractionalPartIfEmpty":true,"offerListingId":"qAlOUs%2Fy32zKUqnPYf7kCsZ%2F%2BxWesw5wnlQ0j5HydUw1aaxsa51JnACE%2BBQpHb57ka2MgcnwQwBcShEiNTXwUFNr55ZrdFin7hjC69vp0SN7DVFljo32iMsfUj8mOyTHTIs%2Fz3y7z223Di01Gbmn%2B8%2Bh0HDhyMTty5C0fSXMaTrat52OBtAkF2vauHEPi0hm","locale":"en-US","buyingOptionType":"USED","aapiBuyingOptionIndex":1}]}
Purchase options and add-ons
“Intellectual property” – patents and copyrights – have become controversial. We witness teenagers being sued for “pirating” music – and we observe AIDS patients in Africa dying due to lack of ability to pay for drugs that are high priced to satisfy patent holders. Are patents and copyrights essential to thriving creation and innovation – do we need them so that we all may enjoy fine music and good health? Across time and space the resounding answer is: No. So-called intellectual property is in fact an “intellectual monopoly” that hinders rather than helps the competitive free market regime that has delivered wealth and innovation to our doorsteps. This book has broad coverage of both copyrights and patents and is designed for a general audience, focusing on simple examples. The authors conclude that the only sensible policy to follow is to eliminate the patents and copyright systems as they currently exist.
- ISBN-100521879280
- ISBN-13978-0521879286
- Edition1st
- PublisherCambridge University Press
- Publication dateJuly 7, 2008
- LanguageEnglish
- Dimensions6.25 x 1 x 9 inches
- Print length312 pages
Customers who bought this item also bought
Page 1 of 1 Start overPage 1 of 1
Diary of a Psychosis: How Public Health Disgraced Itself During COVID ManiaThomas E Woods JrHardcover$11.30 shipping
Customer reviews
4.5 out of 5 stars
4.5 out of 5
51 global ratings
How customer reviews and ratings work
Customer Reviews, including Product Star Ratings help customers to learn more about the product and decide whether it is the right product for them.
To calculate the overall star rating and percentage breakdown by star, we don’t use a simple average. Instead, our system considers things like how recent a review is and if the reviewer bought the item on Amazon. It also analyzed reviews to verify trustworthiness.
Learn more how customers reviews work on Amazon-
Top reviews
Top reviews from the United States
There was a problem filtering reviews right now. Please try again later.
Reviewed in the United States on December 27, 2011
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).
Reviewed in the United States on August 30, 2015
This is a very interesting read. The points made against intellectual property are very strong. The Author is very persuasive, and even after reading the book I agree one hundred percent with the author, but if I was to patent a lucrative project I believe I would want a monopoly. Only government can put an end to intellectual monopoly, and leave everyone with an open playing field. I certainly hope government stops monopoly because freedom of information, and human advancement will move at a very quick rate.
Reviewed in the United States on February 26, 2009
Anyone who has taken a seminar from me knows I attack "Intellectual Property Rights" (IPR) as a bad idea for small business. I draw on what I learned from the highly successful people I worked for long ago, and what has proven true being self-employed myself these last 25 years. As a practical matter far from harming my business, eschewing IPR gives me a competitive advantage when competing on design as opposed to monopoly or price.
I lay out this view in the morning session, and then follow up in the afternoon, while directly addressing contracting designers, with the views of a patent attorney by the name of Stephan Kinsella out of Houston. It was a delight years ago to read his critique from a patent attorney's point of view, with which I concurred. He is more radical (and right) than another lawyer who is somewhat anti-IPR, Lawrence Lessig, the Stanford Law professor. I've developed my arguments over time to the point I was invited to spend an hour making my argument to 17 patent attorneys at a leading IP firm in Seattle last Fall. The IPR lawyers know change is coming, and are working to correct the abuses.
With business and law advancing arguments against IPR, that left academia to round out the condemnation. Washington University professors Michelle Boldrin and David Levine do just that in their book AGAINST INTELLECTUAL MONOPOLY. These are not some flakes being contrarian to get attention, they are regime intellectuals and their book is endorsed by three Nobel Laureates and Lawrence Lessig.
Business in USA is split between the Hamiltonian and Jeffersonian ethics, one loving fascism and the other loving freedom. Obviously with war and economic depression and shortages the Hamiltonians have had the upper hand, so it is very welcome to see a central tool of the bad guys in the USA economy, IPR, being taken apart both by law and academia.
Lawyers practice law and academics practice theory, neither of which seem to be very well informed about how business happens. In some ways their arguments are far more important, since they influence the thinking of so many people. Although it is unstated, AGAINST INTELLECTUAL MONOPOLY proceeds from the theoretical basis laid down by R H Coase as he has laid out in THE FIRM, THE MARKET AND THE LAW. At some point I will review that enormously influential book, but suffice it to say Coase is a Hamiltonian. Essentially, their guiding light is "does policy result in aggregate in a net increase in prosperity.?" By their analysis, the answer is no, IPR is a net deficit. For this conclusion, the book is most welcome, and should be read for the examples that contradict the "pro-IPR" arguments. Jeff Tucker at the Mises Institute has read the book and wrote a series of essays that might be a companion piece that you should read alongside the book.
AGAINST INTELLECTUAL MONOPOLY carefully takes apart the IPR regime as it is, but says nothing about what might be if we were to rid ourselves of it completely. You'll be glad when you put the book down that you've been disabused of the notion that IPR is a good thing, especially the nonsense that we'd have no new medicines without patent monopoly to recover the up front costs. But what should we do? Coase was flexible on policies, because the acid test for his followers is the vague "net increase in wealth." their solution is wishy washy.
That leaves the task of someone writing a book that rejects IPR from a free market point of view, laying out what we would have absent intellectual property rights, and give any startup competitor a road map for crushing those who want to compete by monopoly, doing good while doing well.
I'm working on it.
I lay out this view in the morning session, and then follow up in the afternoon, while directly addressing contracting designers, with the views of a patent attorney by the name of Stephan Kinsella out of Houston. It was a delight years ago to read his critique from a patent attorney's point of view, with which I concurred. He is more radical (and right) than another lawyer who is somewhat anti-IPR, Lawrence Lessig, the Stanford Law professor. I've developed my arguments over time to the point I was invited to spend an hour making my argument to 17 patent attorneys at a leading IP firm in Seattle last Fall. The IPR lawyers know change is coming, and are working to correct the abuses.
With business and law advancing arguments against IPR, that left academia to round out the condemnation. Washington University professors Michelle Boldrin and David Levine do just that in their book AGAINST INTELLECTUAL MONOPOLY. These are not some flakes being contrarian to get attention, they are regime intellectuals and their book is endorsed by three Nobel Laureates and Lawrence Lessig.
Business in USA is split between the Hamiltonian and Jeffersonian ethics, one loving fascism and the other loving freedom. Obviously with war and economic depression and shortages the Hamiltonians have had the upper hand, so it is very welcome to see a central tool of the bad guys in the USA economy, IPR, being taken apart both by law and academia.
Lawyers practice law and academics practice theory, neither of which seem to be very well informed about how business happens. In some ways their arguments are far more important, since they influence the thinking of so many people. Although it is unstated, AGAINST INTELLECTUAL MONOPOLY proceeds from the theoretical basis laid down by R H Coase as he has laid out in THE FIRM, THE MARKET AND THE LAW. At some point I will review that enormously influential book, but suffice it to say Coase is a Hamiltonian. Essentially, their guiding light is "does policy result in aggregate in a net increase in prosperity.?" By their analysis, the answer is no, IPR is a net deficit. For this conclusion, the book is most welcome, and should be read for the examples that contradict the "pro-IPR" arguments. Jeff Tucker at the Mises Institute has read the book and wrote a series of essays that might be a companion piece that you should read alongside the book.
AGAINST INTELLECTUAL MONOPOLY carefully takes apart the IPR regime as it is, but says nothing about what might be if we were to rid ourselves of it completely. You'll be glad when you put the book down that you've been disabused of the notion that IPR is a good thing, especially the nonsense that we'd have no new medicines without patent monopoly to recover the up front costs. But what should we do? Coase was flexible on policies, because the acid test for his followers is the vague "net increase in wealth." their solution is wishy washy.
That leaves the task of someone writing a book that rejects IPR from a free market point of view, laying out what we would have absent intellectual property rights, and give any startup competitor a road map for crushing those who want to compete by monopoly, doing good while doing well.
I'm working on it.
Reviewed in the United States on May 7, 2015
Incredible book. I cant imagine how the authors managed to make a short interesting book whith such a well founded and rock solid argument against intellectual monopoly. A must read for everyone, its easy and fast.
Reviewed in the United States on July 17, 2016
The time for tearing down the unneeded walls of IP is now. Lots of useful info.
Reviewed in the United States on October 29, 2010
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.
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.
Top reviews from other countries
Ker Alley-o
5.0 out of 5 stars
Absolutely mind blowing!
Reviewed in the United Kingdom on January 23, 2023
I had no idea how bad the state of copyright law was. It was especially interesting to understand how the current laws came to be, and how surprising the original motivations were – spoiler, it had only to do with benefiting the very small number of current business owners.
Austin del Rio
5.0 out of 5 stars
Amazing read
Reviewed in Canada on March 4, 2018
A thorough and comprehensive analysis of why patent and copyright are harmful and why they should be ultimately abolished. I would have liked more moral arguments, but solid utilitarian case.
Dennis
5.0 out of 5 stars
Ökonomische Argumentation gegen Intellectual Property
Reviewed in Germany on September 19, 2015
Gegen IP kann auf zwei Ebenen argumentiert werden: einmal auf der ethischen (siehe Hans-Hermann Hoppe, Stephan Kinsella) und auf der ökonomischen. Boldrin und Levine nehmen sich die letztere vor.
Nach dem Lesen dieses Buches bleibt kein Zweifel übrig, dass IP in der aktuellen Form tendenziell schädlich ist (bzgl. Innovation, Wohlfahrt).
Es werden etliche Beispiele für Innovationen gegeben, die gänzlich ohne IP-enforcement stattgefunden haben (z.B. die Anfänge der Software-Branche).
Dann gehen die Autoren dazu über Beispiele für kritische Auswirkungen vom Patentsystem zu nennen (z.B. AIDS-Medikamente).
Die zweite Hälfte des Buches befasst sich mit den zugrundeliegenden ökonomischen Mechanismen.
Alles in allem ein äußerst gelungenes Werk, dass eine längst überfällige Kritik am IP übt.
Michele Boldrin wurde von Jeffrey Tucker zu diesem Buch interviewt. Den Audio-Mittschnitt gibt es beim Mises Institut
Nach dem Lesen dieses Buches bleibt kein Zweifel übrig, dass IP in der aktuellen Form tendenziell schädlich ist (bzgl. Innovation, Wohlfahrt).
Es werden etliche Beispiele für Innovationen gegeben, die gänzlich ohne IP-enforcement stattgefunden haben (z.B. die Anfänge der Software-Branche).
Dann gehen die Autoren dazu über Beispiele für kritische Auswirkungen vom Patentsystem zu nennen (z.B. AIDS-Medikamente).
Die zweite Hälfte des Buches befasst sich mit den zugrundeliegenden ökonomischen Mechanismen.
Alles in allem ein äußerst gelungenes Werk, dass eine längst überfällige Kritik am IP übt.
Michele Boldrin wurde von Jeffrey Tucker zu diesem Buch interviewt. Den Audio-Mittschnitt gibt es beim Mises Institut
Fernando GCV
4.0 out of 5 stars
Interesante
Reviewed in Spain on January 23, 2014
Muy interesante, con visiones originales sobre el problema de los derechos de autor. Desde mi punto de vista en algunas ocasiones su argumentación resulta insuficiente en relación con situaciones como el cine donde la inversión es muy grande y la disponibilidad del producto a través de la red puede ser inmediata y sin deterioro alguno.
Paul O'Malley
5.0 out of 5 stars
While You Still Have Freedom To Think
Reviewed in the United Kingdom on January 5, 2010
It is my hope that people everywhere read this book. It has within its covers a lot of material discussing the limits that our current society faces as we allow our politicians create monopolies with no plus side for any one state's national good. The basic reasoning goes like this, if you limit the ability to do things, you limit the ability to build on that. There will be no giants upon whose shoulders we may stand if the current trend continues. Think for a moment of the Mickey Mouse story, are any of the original authors making any gain from that work. I rest my case.
Enjoy this exercise, while you still can.
Enjoy this exercise, while you still can.
One person found this helpful
Report

