Is intellectual property rights really important? Does the autumn wind Microsoft should disclose their source code? NAPSTER makes netizens to download the songs of songs illegal? Shopping website imitates Amazon's online shopping model, whether to infringe the rights of Bezos? These are the most interesting questions and are also issues that have triggered a large dispute in the field of domestic business and international trade. Accordingly, in the academic community, including patent rights and copyright, copyright, trademark rights, there is also a broad dispute, and some basic issues involving economics: whether to protect intellectual property is a monopoly? Does protect intellectual property will inevitably promote knowledge and technological innovation, thus promoting economic growth? Is it indispensable for economic growth? Is it too much to protect the protection of intellectual property rights? Refusing the government's protection, from the market mechanism to run, can it play the same encouragement of innovation? Frankly, the debate between the country around this issue is full of strong moral passion in the debate of Microsoft Intellectual Property. The author did not study this, nor did it determine the position. This article is just a brief introduction to an academic masters, which may help readers understand the exact meaning of this 旷日 争久 from the perspective of purely knowledge and ideas. Economists and devil's deal of the Minneapolis Federation Reserve, published the Bank of China last year, Mihel Budlin, Department of Economics, University of Minnesota, and the Los Angelicism of Ai Zeren Economics, David · One of Levin's report "Fully Competitive Innovation" (Michele Boldrin and David K. Levine, Perfectly Competitive Innovation, http://minneapolisfed.org/research/sr/sr303.html), they constructed a remuneration The Competitive Model of Innovation and Economic Growth under Constant Conditions. Their point of view has caused a wide point of attention, because their views are a bit awkward: the rights granted by the government, not only strengthen the monopoly, but also caused a high-priced low quality, which hinders the future. Innovation. The full competitive market is fully able to reward (thus incentive) innovation activities, so copyright and patents are completely redundant. Such a view is completely reconciliated with the mainstream economic growth theory of economics. In the 1950s, Robert Solo has proven to research, technology change is the main driving force of economic growth, but his model is regarded as a given variable, which is determined by a factor other than pure economic power. In the 1960s, Kenneth Alo et al. Analyzed the relationship between market and technology changes, and they concluded that the free market could not bring optimal levels of innovation. Alo gives three reasons, which makes it completely competitive to achieve the optimal configuration of resources in innovation activities: "We asserted that the free corporate economy has insufficient investment invented and research (compared to the ideal state), It is because such investment is risky because its products can only be proven correctly on very limited extent, as well as rewards in use. "Risk issues are obvious, no need to say. The second problem is incapProPriability, that is, an inventive creator is not commensurate from the income obtained from the creation. For example, I invented the wheel, I can only earn 1,000 yuan, but all human beings can get infinite benefits from it, then will I try to invent it? It is likely that it will not. Of course, this issue can be solved with a definitive property right law. The most important challenge is indivisible.
In other words, a invention creation, you first spend a lot of expenses (time or money) before you can have a song, a equation or a book. And after this, copy it as long as a little cost, this will have a summation increment. For example, in the initial investment of 1 million talents recorded a song, then invested 1 million, but can produce 1 million records. At this point, if other vendors enter the replication, the product is priced at its marginal cost, and the price is not enough to recover the previous investment, of course, the creator has no innovation. Therefore, it is necessary to grant the creator to monopolize some form. It is along this idea. In the late 1970s, Joseph Stiglitz and Avinash Dixt have developed a growth model of monopoly competition. The assumption behind this currently widely used model is that economic growth requires technological changes, which means that there will be rewards, which belongs to incomplete competition. Next, Paul Romer forms formulated this model, puts forward the theory of endogenous growth, and incorporates technology change in growth model. The core of Romer Theory is "Nonrivalry", he believes that "a non-competitive item has such an attribute: a business or a person uses it, does not limit other companies or people to use it "Such items are inherently have rewards, and thus, in a completely competitive market, it is impossible to motivate technological innovation, and therefore, economic growth cannot be expensive. Economic growth requires some degree of monopoly. Of course, there are certainly don't like monopolies, copyright, etc., but they want the economy to grow, so they have to make such a buffer-style transaction: tolerate a certain degree of monopoly to achieve economic growth . The previous challenge is in fact, the patent, copyright and other Governments have been a topic of economists to argue in economists with a temporary monopoly right. The Venice Government of the 15th century introduced the patent and copyright system, tried to enable innovators to get proprietary rights in a certain period to motivate them to innovate. The US Constitution even gives a Congress to "to promote the authority and discovery of the author and the discovery" authority of the author and the discovery to promote the progress of science and practical skills. Many economists believe that this exclusive power allows creators to limit prices and production, making it most beneficial to society. In the modern Austrian school tradition, some scholars have doubts even against the system of various protection intellectual property rights implemented. Missès has pointed out: "Patent system and copyright system is the result of the legal evolution in the last hundred years. The status in the traditional system of property rights is still arguing. People think of them, think they are unfair They are considered privileges, which is a legal guarantee for the privilege of authorities to grant writers and inventors of the government. Their roles are suspicious because they only make the sale of exclusive prices. Advantageously, and whether the patent law is equally, controversy is also controversial based on the following reasons: The patent law is only the rewards who have completed certain inventions in the final stage to enter the actual use. These inventions are gradually close to success, before Some people have much much more contribution to these inventions than this subsequent, but they did not enjoy the interests of patents. "(Missise, Xia Tao Translation," human behavior ", Taiwan Bank, 1976 Year, Page 675. Missès despite no nationality to negate the patents clearly, he will pay it into the "privilege".
Similarly, in 1947, Hayek has proposed: extending the concept of property rights to the field such as inventive patents, copyright and trademark, may threaten the market order of freedom competition: "I am sure that there is undoubtedly: first In these areas, the concept of property rights developed blindly developed against organisms has greatly contributed to the development of monopoly; therefore, second, if we want to make competition play in these areas, Then we must conduct thorough reforms, especially in the field of industrial patents, we must also carefully explore such a problem: awarding the law of monopoly, whether the risk of scientific investment has, Really most effective way? "In Hayek, the concept of property rights expanded to the field of intellectual property, so as to give almost absolute protection of intellectual property," greatly contributed to a harmful and unmexible The establishment of privileges "(Hayek, Deng Zhenglai," Individualism and Free Order ", Sanlian Bookstore, 2003, page 167). In a lifetime, Hayek will regard this monopoly as a government manufactured. In his later years, the "legislation and freedom", Hayek puts industrial patents and tariffs and governments in the field of transportation, utilities, and the government belong to the government "deliberately support monopoly or put monopoly as a policy. Tools use ", he asked:" If the government does not support a variety of monopoly, is it possible to be a serious problem? "(Deng Zhenglai, China University, 2000, page 398) ). Another learner in the early years, Fritz Mahrip, who is deeply influential: "There is no need to use patent protection to motivate enterprises in the competitive market in the development of products and processing methods. A company has developed new Products, and the first short-term income that put it into the market, "Murray Rosbad also pointed out in its huge" people, economic and national ":" patent Encourage the absolute growth of research expenses, this is not clear. On the contrary, it can be sure that patents will disrupt the pattern of research spending distribution. Because, it is clear that the first discovery can profit from privileges, equivalent Yes, competitors must not enter the production area for many years ... Moreover, patent holders do not have incentive in depth in this field, because privileges can make him enjoy it. "Of course, these Austrian school economists must It is not opposed to the inventive creator and the author's remuneration, they just oppose the government involvement or too much intervention, because they belong to libertariansim, in the economic theory, they firmly believe in the power of the free market. They pay attention to the market as a process, not a static market structure. The government awarded, and the intellectual property of the government enforced intellectual property will create a monopoly that disrupts the market process. And as long as it is monopoly, it has a monopoly of all harm, regardless of the monopoly. They proposed and argued that the free market itself can spontaneously develop some kind of protection and incentive mechanisms, and give the inventive creator with the necessary return. However, because the Austrian School itself is in the edge state for a long time, and their theory does not model, lacks the foundation of the mainstream dialogue, so their arguments have not attracted extensive attention. Retreat once again challenge Bodlin and Levin followed this story. They first argued that in history, countless innovations are emerging without intellectual property protection. Mozart wrote countless beautiful music, and did not have government to protect his copyright. Contemporary examples are not enumerated.
The most typical is the popular fashion field. Each fashion designer is constantly pushing up, they don't care about others and even imitations, they are still innovation, and, they have also obtained a lot of profits. Similarly, in the securities market, each financial product will be quickly imitated by other companies, but this does not cancel the enthusiasm of enterprise innovation. Beszzos operates Amazon, and does not find other shopping websites to ask online shopping model patents. Even in the software industry. They referred with the papers of two economists of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, "The most innovative industrial jujube software, computer and semiconductor industry, is quite weak, and the products are always quickly imitated." Instead, it is a decision of the Federal Court to strengthen the protection of software patents to make software more creative, because software companies that have obtained monopoly can only develop upgraded products, they can get rich profits. We are no longer a new software, but just the first few versions of a software. These two economists explained this phenomenon in theory. They focus on non-competitive views of knowledge innovation. The support of the above-mentioned Romer et al. Is a so-called "non-competitive" concept, and these two economists argue that the pure concept, the use of ideas is indeed a non-competitiveness. However, the use of the shape of the concept is not competitive. And economics should only care about these things that reflect ideas. For example, a software program may have no value, but other people should use the program, they must be copied, which requires a certain resource, this time, it is scarce. A disc that contains the program, when you are using, others cannot be used. Of course, the cost of developing the program is much higher than the copying the program to a disc. But even if it is replicated, it is not free, but the production cost is much lower. Here, two different production processes: the first process of developing production prototypes is long and hard, and the process of replication is relatively much easier. However, Romer did not make such a distinction, but the general knowledge products were non-competitive. In fact, only the concepts contained in the prototype are non-competitive, and as a replication of large-scale production processes, there is no need to pay increasing phenomenon, and still follow the general market law. The above problem is just a problem, the core problem is still: whether an innovator has enough incentives to carry out this fertilization and costly innovation process. If a piece of things have been created, others can imitate, how do innovators profit? No several economists like as a monopoly copyright and patent, if you oppose these monopoly, you need to prove that how free market can ensure that innovators get enough incentives? Bodlin and Levin have designed their own solutions, that is, innovators will be given "Right Of First Sale". When the prototype of his knowledge product is sold, it will receive all the market value of the product in the future. For example, if a singer recorded a new song, you can sell the master to the music publisher, which is equivalent to the total compensation of her fans in the next few years. That is, according to the idea of the two authors, all of the creators will come from several products originally sold, because the imperatives must also buy the prototype of a product to simulate manufacturing. Thus, creators can sell it at very high prices. At this point, these products are not consumer goods, which is equivalent to capital. The debate has just begun this article to publish a broad dispute in the academic community, and the economists who have introduced several top-level research growth issues appeared in the rivers and lakes. Soro believes that this paper "gives a lot of inspiration", but needs to be further refined. Lucas, a Nobel Prize winner of the University of Chicago, said that their theory may not have problems, but it is clearly scope of applicable.
