Responding to the Challenges of "Against Intellectual Monopoly"

Vertinsky Liza S.
Additional contact information
Vertinsky Liza S.: Emory University School of Law

Review of Law & Economics, 2009, vol. 5, issue 3, 1115-1129

Abstract: Most would agree that a sound patent system is one in which the social benefits of the system exceed the social costs. Many would also agree that the current patent system imposes significant social costs, and that the current proposed patent reform legislation is largely motivated by a desire to address those costs. In their book, Against Intellectual Monopoly (2008), Boldrin and Levine base their policy recommendation to abolish the patent system on the claim that the social costs of having any patent system, even an “improved” or “reformed” one, will inevitably exceed its benefits. I argue that while Against Intellectual Monopoly falls short of establishing a case for abolishing the patent system, it succeeds in making a case for rethinking the law and economics paradigm of patents that has formed the foundation for much of patent law scholarship and policy. The arguments that Boldrin and Levine offer provide compelling reasons for re-examining the core assumptions underlying the dominant models of how patents impact innovation, paying greater attention to institutional alternatives and to historical lessons about the strength of competitive markets and the costs and benefits of regulatory intervention that dampens competition. I suggest we can meet the challenges highlighted by Boldrin and Levine by providing a more central role for New Institutional Economics (NIE) in the study of patent law, refocusing our analysis on the structure of activities and transactions that drive alternative processes of innovation and the roles that institutions (including but not limited to patent, contract and competition laws, and the informal rules governing collaboration and research activities) and organizations (both public and private) play in determining transactional structures and innovation outcomes.

Date: 2009
References: View references in EconPapers View complete reference list from CitEc
Citations: View citations in EconPapers (1)

Downloads: (external link)
https://doi.org/10.2202/1555-5879.1431 (text/html)
For access to full text, subscription to the journal or payment for the individual article is required.

Related works:
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.

Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text

Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:bpj:rlecon:v:5:y:2009:i:3:n:8

Ordering information: This journal article can be ordered from
https://www.degruyter.com/journal/key/rle/html

DOI: 10.2202/1555-5879.1431

Access Statistics for this article

Review of Law & Economics is currently edited by Francesco Parisi

More articles in Review of Law & Economics from De Gruyter
Bibliographic data for series maintained by Peter Golla ().