English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

In the modern theory of innovation, monopoly plays a crucial role both as a cause and as well as an effect of creative economic activity. An innovative firm wouldn’t have enough incentive to innovate without the prospect of monopoly power. In this paper we argue that monopoly is neither a cause for, nor a necessary consequence of innovation. In particular, intellectual property is not necessary for innovation and growth. We show that competitive rents allow creative individuals to appropriate a large enough share of the social surplus generated by their innovations to compensate for their opportunity cost. We provide various examples of how competitive markets for innovative products would work in the absence of IP and critically discuss a number of common fallacies in the previous literature. Therefore, our conclusions are that the IP shouldn’t be the default, but rather the exception. JEL classification: X15; X16; D42; D62.

Propiedad intelectual y asignación eficiente del beneficio social de las innovaciones