Spoiler, 22:30, the problem with government granted monopolies is that they cannot be sold to someone else. That is why government granted monopolies = bad and IP = good.
Spoiler, 18:20 , his reason that taxi medallions are different from IP is that you can't sell half a taxi medallion. Therefore taxi medallions = bad and IP = good. Oh and he also mentions that taxi medallions can't be transferred between states, that's why they're bad.
The strong correlation I believe, is due to this principle: The scarcity of the world is not of time nor energy nor money but of mutual solutions. Solutions are unlimited but we are not rich enough because we are not giving back to our sources of solutions. Patent enables and forces people to do this, which is a good thing. Although I do believe that this doesn't have to be the only way to address the issue. I have an idea which is for social media companies to enable each users to issue stickers that could be bought by another user. The sticker then will be posted in the buyer's profile page. Having plenty of meaningful stickers in your profile page means you might be a good business partner, or customers prefer to buy your products.
His example for the economic benefit of patents is the sewing machine, which by his own admission, only came to market at an affordable price because Isaac Singer ignored (or was possibly unaware of) the patents of Elias Howe. Might want to look for another example.
Thank you Professor Mossoff what an amazingly user friendly or interesting presentation of a complicated and important concern.
Spoiler, 22:30, the problem with government granted monopolies is that they cannot be sold to someone else. That is why government granted monopolies = bad and IP = good.
There are probably many many more conceptual errors in this piece. Probably enough for a Shaun Skull video at least an hour long!
Spoiler, 18:20 , his reason that taxi medallions are different from IP is that you can't sell half a taxi medallion. Therefore taxi medallions = bad and IP = good. Oh and he also mentions that taxi medallions can't be transferred between states, that's why they're bad.
Wasn't Hayek against IP and copyrights??
Great talk. How much caffeine has this fella had? ☕️
Thank you Professor. My teacher told me to present the role of innovation in US economy which I couldn't found. Can anyone help me in this regard?
4.00 many economists believe ip isnt productive
Oh be slow and clearly
I don't know any thang about these
Oh my Gad this is law
The strong correlation I believe, is due to this principle:
The scarcity of the world is not of time nor energy nor money but of mutual solutions. Solutions are unlimited but we are not rich enough because we are not giving back to our sources of solutions.
Patent enables and forces people to do this, which is a good thing. Although I do believe that this doesn't have to be the only way to address the issue.
I have an idea which is for social media companies to enable each users to issue stickers that could be bought by another user. The sticker then will be posted in the buyer's profile page.
Having plenty of meaningful stickers in your profile page means you might be a good business partner, or customers prefer to buy your products.
principle, not principal.
Diego Sandoval thank you, I've changed it
Did you understood this lecture
vouch stickers can be abused, and are, sadly.
I agree that the scarcity is that in mutually agreed upon solutions.
His example for the economic benefit of patents is the sewing machine, which by his own admission, only came to market at an affordable price because Isaac Singer ignored (or was possibly unaware of) the patents of Elias Howe. Might want to look for another example.
Saying to libertarians that IP is good? Really? That's even more stupid than just saying that IP is good.
because supply and demand doesn't exist LOL
Wonderful presentation!