| I am struggling to find any actual facts to back up the common falsehood you are repeating. Want to point out something? [pg. 11] "International companies would only invest in research in locations with sufficiently strong IP." Yeah, I would prefer to put my investment where I have government helping me strongarm people into paying me more money too. Somehow your paper failed to mention other possible factors like being able to get away with testing sexual dysfunction drugs on children and only getting fined $97: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-india-16381458 [pg. 15] "Most policymakers reported that the IP system was an asset to encouraging domestic innovative activity. Changes in the IP system in Brazil was seen as significant in setting the foundation for innovative activity." This is just bare assertion from policymakers. [pg. 37] "A common measure of the output of innovation used in the literature is the number of registered patents in the country. In particular, it is common to see analysis based on the number of international patents (defined as the number of patents granted to
inventors from a particular country)." [pg. 43] "There has been a clear increase in innovation in terms of patents. Leaving aside South Korea, this again shows the dramatic performance of China, but also gradual progress in a number of other markets." This is ludicrous to measure innovation by the number of patents. The "dramatic performance of China" is an increase in patents due to strengthened IP laws in recent years, that's it. If the mechanisms for enforcement of an IP regime are strengthened, then sure you will see more people using it. More companies are willing to disclose trade secrets because they have patent protection. That's all this shows, not that innovation is occurring because of IP law. I don't really see much more that needs to be addressed in this paper, certainly no supporting evidence for your claim that IP is beneficial besides to the monopoly holders and monopoly givers. It's your claim, so you need to do better than just link an article. There is a more meaty section in your paper, but you would have to actually read your own source to find it and then I can proceed to demolish it. |