Ignorance when mixed with prejudice and wealth is a toxic combination
Which is why we should probably avoid analysis like this:
Let’s also ignore the fact that most wealth is utterly dependent on state support for its existence. Without copyright, patent and other now hopelessly biased and prejudiced intellectual property law much of this wealth would not have accumulated. Let’s also ignore then, as the FT does, that almost all this wealth results from market failure.
Intellectual property law is a response to a market failure. For, without property rights to IP, fewer than the optimal number of people would create less than an optimal amount of it.
We can, of course, echo Tonto and ask “Whose optimal, paleface?” but this is the underlying point being made.
It costs a lot to develop an idea, design, book. Once created and perfected it is trivially easy to copy. Thus those who would create are put off doing so by the difficulty of profiting from having done so. Thus we create, out of nothing, that IP. In order that people may profit, thus they have the incentive to create.
That is, IP law is a response to market failure. And if you don’t know that then you’re really not up with the basics of the subject under discussion.
But then Snippa…..