See some comments below and then some suggestions.
First: what you are pointing to here—this is actually my biggest problem with the patent system: if it is true that it impedes the development and spread and use of technological innovation, which I think it does, it has an unimaginable cumulative effect on human welfare and undoubtedly harms billions of lives by premature deaths, etc. This is because—the reason we are rich is because of the knowledge we have accumulated. So anything that impedes this causes untold and immeasurable harm to the human race. That is why I say it’s death, as here, in The Death Throes of Pro-IP Libertarianism:
It is obscene to undermine the glorious operation of the market in producing wealth and abundance by imposing artificial scarcity on human knowledge and learning (see “IP and Artificial Scarcity“). Learning, emulation, and information are good. It is good that information can be reproduced, retained, spread, and taught and learned and communicated so easily. Granted, we cannot say that it is bad that the world of physical resources is one of scarcity — this is the way reality is, after all — but it is certainly a challenge, and it makes life a struggle. It is suicidal and foolish to try to hamper one of our most important tools — learning, emulation, knowledge — by imposing scarcity on it. Intellectual property is theft. Intellectual property is statism. Intellectual property is death. Give us intellectual freedom instead!
This is why I say patents are even worse than copyright and IP itself—mainly patents (plus copyright)—are among the worst statist institutions/laws:
On this topic, see, for example, Hayek’s mention of the “fund of experience”—that we humans draw on for continued success. That means the human race learns things over time and that knowledge spreads, and is emulated and adopted, and so we keep getting richer. Anything that intentionally impedes the spread and use of such knowledge is suicidal, it harms the human race.
“the rise of our standard of life is due at least as much to an increase in knowledge which enables us not merely to consume more of the same things but to use different things, and often things we did not even know before. And though the growth of income depends in part on the accumulation of capital, more probably depends on our learning to use our resources more effectively and for new purposes.
The growth of knowledge is of such special importance because, while the material resources will always remain scarce and will have to be reserved for limited purposes, the users of new knowledge (where we do not make them artificially scarce by patents of monopoly) are unrestricted. Knowledge, once achieved, becomes gratuitously available for the benefit of all. It is through this free gift of the knowledge acquired by the experiments of some members of society that general progress is made possible, that the achievements of those who have gone before facilitate the advance of those who follow.”
“… The range of what will be tried and later developed, the fund of experience that will become available to all, is greatly extended by the unequal distribution of present benefits; and the rate of advance will be greatly increased if the first steps are taken long before the majority can profit from them. Many of the improvements would indeed never become a possibility for all if they had not long before been available to some. If all had to wait for better things until they could be provided for all, that day would in many instances never come. Even the poorest today owe their relative material well-being to the results of past inequality.”
As I wrote previously,
Material progress is made over time in human society because information is not scarce. It can be infinitely multiplied, learned, taught, and built on. The more patterns, recipes, causal laws that are known add to the stock of knowledge available to all actors and act as a greater and greater wealth multiplier by allowing actors to engage in ever-more efficient and productive actions. It is a good thing that ideas are infinitely reproducible, not a bad thing. There is no need to impose artificial scarcity on these things to make them more like scarce resources, which, unfortunately, are scarce.
From Knowledge is Power. See also related links in Intellectual Property and the Structure of Human Action such as:
- Intellectual Property and Economic Development.
- Tucker, Hayek: Spread of Non-Scarce Knowledge is the Key to Progress; Tucker, “Misesian vs. Marxian vs. IP Views of Innovation“; Tucker, “Hayek on Patents and Copyrights“
- Tucker, “Knowledge Is as Valuable as Physical Capital”
So IP—patents—slow down the development, use, and spread of technical innovation. And they ADMIT it does this. See e.g. “To paraphrase the late economist Joan Robinson, patents and copyrights slow down the diffusion of new ideas for a reason: to ensure there will be more new ideas to diffuse.” See Independent Institute on The “Benefits” of Intellectual Property Protection.
And it limits free market competition. That it’s purpose:
Governments adopt intellectual property laws in the belief that a privileged, monopolistic domain operating on the margins of the free-market economy promotes long-term cultural and technological progress better than a regime of unbridled competition.
… Intellectual property laws typically provide qualified creators with temporary grants of exclusive property rights that derogate from the norms of free competition in order to overcome the “public goods” problem inherent in the commercial exploitation of intangible creations.
See my post Intellectual Property Advocates Hate Competition.
IP is an explicit attempt to impose artificial scarcity where none exists. Its proponents admit this; this is a feature, not a bug, for them. As Hayek noted in The Constitution of Liberty, as quoted above: “The growth of knowledge is of such special importance because, while the material resources will always remain scarce and will have to be reserved for limited purposes, the users of new knowledge (where we do not make them artificially scarce by patents of monopoly) …”
The literature is rife with IP scholars (mostly proponents) admitting that it’s an attempt to impose artificial scarcity where none exists naturally. Just google it. E.g. see Cezary Błaszczyk, “The Critique of Copyright in Hans-Hermann Hoppe’s Argumentation Ethics,” Central European Journal of Social Sciences and Humanities, vol. 68 (2016), pp. 33–54 (PDF; Academia), discussing the “artificial scarcity” imposed by copyright law. See also IP and Artificial Scarcity, mentioning Arnold Plant and Boudewijn Bouckaert’s comments on the artificial scarcity created by IP law.
So… these IP fascists admit it. Patents slow down diffusion of ideas and limit free market competition. Patents impose artificial scarcity where none naturally exists. That’s the purpose. WTF. Of course innovation is impeded and human death and misery is the result.
Now as for the concrete ways IP—patents mostly, but also copyright—literally kills people, see various links you can find from this search: https://c4sif.org/?s=patents+kill, such as:
- Patents Kill Update: Volunteers 3D-Print Unobtainable $11,000 Valve For $1 To Keep Covid-19 Patients Alive; Original Manufacturer Threatens To Sue
- Patents Kill: Millions Die in Africa After Big Pharma Blocks Imports of Generic AIDS Drugs
- Patents Kill: Compulsory Licenses and Genzyme’s Life Saving Drug
- Killing people with patents
- HuffPo: Patent Trolls Are Killing People — Literally
- Patents Threaten To Silence A Little Girl, Literally
- Rothbard on Mercantilism and State “Patents of Monopoly”:
- It was Paris in 1730, and the printed cotton fabrics known as toiles peintes or indiennes—in English, calicoes, chintzes, or muslins—had been illegal since 1686. It was an extreme version of trade protectionism, designed to shelter French textile producers from Indian cottons. Every few years the authorities would tweak the law, but the fashion refused to die.Frustrated by rampant smuggling and ubiquitous scofflaws, in 1726 the government increased penalties for traffickers and anyone helping them. Offenders could be sentenced to years in galleys, with violent smugglers put to death. Local authorities were given the power to detain without trial anyone who merely wore the forbidden fabrics or upholstered furniture with them.
- FDA and USPTO: Joint Killers
- Over Two Dozen Patent/FDA-caused Drug Shortage Patients File Suit Against HHS
Why don’t you take a look at all this then come back to me if you want to discuss it more. If you wanted to assemble more data, I would support that and appreciate it. I think if you could look into various studies or analyses that argue for how technological innovation, scientific discovery, etc., are the key reasons for modern prosperity, then this could aid the analysis. Most of these scholars are completely unaware or confused about the effect patents have on innovation. But if you add that to the analysis, you could help bolster and illustrate the claim that patents kill people—billions of people over time. Untold numbers of people.
Basically it would be this: sources A, B, C…. all explain why we are richer now than the Romans were, due to our knowledge–the earth is the same, we are not really smarter. It’s just the knowledge we have. this is a theme I have pushed repeatedly, explaining that successful human actions requires access to and control of scarce resources, which are the subject of property rights, and knowledge of causal laws (scientific knowledge) and various recipes–inventions, designs, machines, processes, engineering methods–that can be used to guide our action. The former is fairly limited so we have property rights for it; but the latter keeps growing–our “fund of experience.” So ANYTHING that impedes the development, spread, communication, use, adoption, emulation of advances in technological knowledge has a butterfly effect that kills or harms the human race going forward. This includes taxation, the business cycle (caused by the fed), patent law, and so on.
Anyway ponder all this then get back with me to let me know what other questions or suggestions you have.