Home Page
02. 7.2008 (previous | next)
Harm to Innovation

PFF Senior Fellow and Director, Adam Thierer praises Professor Ed Felten's remarks on the legal mud-slinging between Microsoft-Google.

Whatever one thinks of the merits of the Microsoft-Yahoo merger and Google’s immediate and vociferous opposition to it, Ed Felten is 100% right when he says of Google’s actions:
“Complaining has downsides for Google too — a government skeptical of acquisitions by dominant high-tech companies could easily boomerang and cause Google its own antitrust headaches down the road.”
...On the days their own butts are on the line, they (corporations) tell us the antitrust authorities are villainous scum that must be defeated at all cost! The next day—when their competitors are in the crosshairs—the antitrust officials are regarded as benevolent knights possessing Solomonic wisdom, and we’re told that we should trust them to guide us to an economic promised land called “perfect competition.”
While I agree that corporations may fall on their own swords when running for government regulators' offices seeking help against the competition, I find other sources potentially more harmful in their incitement of government market intervention: self-ordained consumer advocates such as EFF and PK and what I call their private sector war on creators.

When innovation in the digital economy is essential for improved economic activity and consumer welfare, these consumer advocates want a piece of the action too. As Professor Lee Hollar has stated on the over-zealousness of some commentators- The buzzword du jour is “innovation,” which will be “chilled” by just about anything done."

These new consumer advocates may well find badgering successful commercial entities as its own reward.

But hyping up mole-hills, created by IPRs or dominant firms like Microsoft, as injurous to society would do substantial harm. For one, government officials would be invited to impose regulations where no harm has occurred. Second, innovators may be vilified after risking investments and face undue consumer or government scrutiny. And while many purported consumer advocates claim to be free market libertarians, one must ask whether they see themselves as replacements for the state. Market regulation, at the least, has some basis in democratic systems of political economy.

posted by Noel Le @ 11:58 AM | General

Link to this Entry | Printer-Friendly | Email a Comment | Post a Comment(2)


Comments

So advocating against overzealous application of the antitrust laws is virtuous, but advocating against overzealous application of the copyright laws will destroy our democracy? Both camps claim to protect "innovation" - see http://www.microsoft.com/freedomtoinnovate/

Posted by: John Gordon at February 8, 2008 9:20 AM

Who is arguing against overzealous application of IP laws? Note how many times I"ve written on fair use, reverse engineering, etc. PFF's work on KSR also reflects the view that limiting IPRs will make them more effective in stirring innovation.

I think you miss my main point above, which was that the concept of *harm* is often ill-treated. Over-zealous consumer advocates will hype up perceived harms when they would discipline commercial entitites, but downplay harm when the government is involved. The difference between these two scenarios is not *harm to innovation*, but what I see as an attempt by consumer groups to discplace the state.

While some administrations, and the regulatory agencies that dwell under them, may not be optimal for innovation, they should not be subverted for self-justifying consumer groups that really don't serve consumers.

Posted by: Noel at February 8, 2008 10:12 AM








 
IPcentral WebLog

Blog Main

IPcentral Blogosphere Archives

Search the Blog

Recent Posts
  - Isn’t It Ironic: TechCrunch Blames the Music Industry for the Dangerous Ideas of Lessig and the Free Culture Movement
- Commercial Open Source Firms Get VC Money
- Differing Estimates of Patent Litigation Costs
- Groklaw and Commercial Influence
- The SFLC and Microsoft
- Bazaars and Cathedrals
- FOSS Developers
- Notions of Free
- Lessig's (Government) FOSS Market
- Zittrain Speaks about Preserving the Internet and Lessig Rants about Eliminating Copyrights and Privacy.
Archives by Month
  - April 2008
- March 2008
- February 2008
- January 2008
  - (see all)
Archives by Subject
  - Academia
- Access: Commons, Fair Use, Orphan Works, Public Domain
- Accounting
- Analog Holes
- Antitrust
- Art
- Aspen
- Big Tent
- Biotech
- Books
- Comments from Readers
- Counterfeit
- Digital Americas
- Digital Europe
- Digital Europe 2006
- DMCA
- DRM & Watermarks, etc.
- Economics, Game Theory & Public Choice
- Enforcement & Remedies
- Free Culture Movement
- Games
- General
- Infrastructure
- International
- Internet: P2P, Search Engines...
- Legislation and Legislators
- Liberty and IP
- Markets: Business, Investment & Innovation
- Media: Video, Music...
- Patents
- Pharma
- Physical Property
- Prices, Terms, and Licensing
- Privacy and Security
- Radio
- Software
- Spectrum & Wireless
- Standards
- Supreme Court
- Tax-Funded IP
- Telecom
- Theft of Service
- Universities
Links
 

Site Feed

  - Atom
- RSS 1.0
- RSS 2.0
We welcome comments by email - look for a link to the author's email address in the byline of each post. Please let us know if we may publish your remarks.


 
Home Page