Blog Archive : Other

	Transatlantic contrast in IP policy	Alberto Mingardi	25 AUG 2004
	Super Mario v Microsoft	Helen Disney	28 JULY 2004
	Bagging the criminals	Helen Disney	21 JULY 2004
	Opening a can of worms	Helen Disney	22 JUNE 2004

Transatlantic contrast in IP policy
25 AUG 2004 - The Progress & Freedom Foundation's Aspen Summit is the single conference you need to attend if you’re interested in issues related with the rapid emergence of new technologies. Not just the location is outstanding and makes you wish you could stop there for one month rather than for a couple of days, but the organization is perfect, the attendants are some of the key players in the field, and panels are very interesting and lively. This year, the meeting focused on the future of the Internet. The evolution of digital competition and IP protection were an important subject of debate in such a context. In particular, on August 23, US Assistant Attorney General Hewitt Pate delivered an excellent speech on antitrust, competition and the end of geography. Mr. Pate’s presentation was very thoughtful and timely. Among his many insights, Mr. Pate examined the differences between the antitrust conception currently dominant in the American environment, and the one inspiring competition policies in Europe.

One point of major divergence is the contention that essential IP contents should be made available to competitors in the name of some version of “general interest” – a popular idea in Europe, not so much in the US.

The American approach is typically more “Darwinian”: the importance of a healthy structure of incentives is not denied, and the fact that competition is a game with winners and losers is often properly understood. “Dominant position” is not a problem per se – if obtained with lawful means, and if there are no barriers to entry in a given market. Not that American antitrust regulations are beyond good and evil. Impressive literature have been assembled by free market scholars to criticize their excesses and the inner hubris of competition policy per se – from Sherman Act to the Microsoft case. See, among others, the impressive amount of scholarly essays and policy studies assembled by the Mises Institute, Cato Institute, and CEI. Austrian economists, in particularly, have persuasively argued for the complete repeal of antitrust regulations. Still, if the choice is between two evils, antitrust regulations that focus on consumer welfare are definitely to be preferred over antitrust regulations that focus on, well, competitors’ welfare. How does IP fit into the scheme, and what kind of IP regime one or the other antitrust Weltanschauung may prompt, is something scholars and policy experts should carefully ponder .
back to top permalink

Super Mario v Microsoft
28 JULY 2004 - Alberto Mingardi and Paulo Zanetti of the Italian think tank, Istituto Bruno Leoni have just produced an English version of their special briefing paper analysing the European Commission's anti-trust case against Microsoft. The paper argues that the case is founded upon theories that disregard the true nature of competition and raise concerns about the need for protection of software houses' intellectual property rights, if Europe is to develop a flourishing market in innovative new technologies.
back to top permalink feedback

Bagging the criminals
21 JULY 2004 - Counterfeit products are now widespread across the globe. They may seem harmless to most people. After all, what's the problem with ordinary punters buying a fake Louis Vuitton bag for a few euros when the real thing would cost a fortune? Likewise, why should consumers worry when they get offered a fake DVD in the local pub - after all, it's just a bit of harmless entertainment at a cheap price.

Well, as a large feature in this weekend's Observer newspaper shows, the problem is actually very serious for any of us who are worried about contributing to organised crime and, worse still, terrorist activity. Regardless of the intellectual property question - although that in itself is another important debate - consumers need to know where the money for fake goods is really going: into the hands of the mafia, criminal gangs and associated thugs and terrorists. Makes getting a cheap designer handbag seem a pretty high price to pay, doesn't it?.
back to top permalink feedback

Opening a can of worms
22 JUNE 2004 - The debate on open source drug development is hotting up. The Economist has just published a long article debating the merits and demerits of the open source approach. Open source was originally designed as a collaborative method of developing software and soem policymakers and commentators have been asking whether it could provide a model for the pharmaeceutical industry and the public sector to co-operate on devising drugs for neglected diseases. While this seems like an excellent idea in theory, in practice there are many many differences between developing software and developing new medicines, not least the very high costs involved in investing in pharmaceutical R&D. While open source might seem like a panacea it could just be opening a whole new can of worms.
back to top permalink feedback