Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

Passages

(2,418 posts)
Mon Mar 31, 2025, 09:38 AM Monday

Patents and the Abundance Agenda

Mar 31, 2025

By Dean Baker


I haven’t read Ezra Klein and Derek Thompson’s new book, Abundance, but everyone I know seems to be talking about it. Therefore, I thought I would throw in my two cents, not on the book for obvious reasons, but on what a serious Abundance Agenda (AA) should look like. Specifically, I want to talk about patents and how reform of the rules on intellectual property really needs to be at the center of a serious AA.

The key point that most people in policy debates seem determined to ignore is that there is a huge amount of money at stake with patent monopolies and their cousin, copyrights. My calculations indicate that these monopolies raise the cost of the protected items by more than $1 trillion a year. This comes to around $7,500 per household.

SNIP
Specifically, they repeatedly changed the rules on intellectual property to make patent and copyright monopolies longer and stronger. These rules changes, both in domestic law and international trade agreements, were not just the natural working of the market. They were deliberate policy that had the effect of shifting income from less-educated workers to those with college and advanced degrees.

Putting intellectual property reform on the table is acknowledgement that policy did in fact screw tens of millions of less-educated workers to the benefit of more educated workers. Just to take one important example, before the Bayh-Dole Act passed in 1980, which made it far easier for private corporations to get patents on publicly funding research, just 0.4 percent of GDP was spent of prescription drugs. Furthermore, there was no upward trend in this spending, it had been roughly the same for the prior two decades. Spending on drugs rose rapidly in the next two decades. It is now more than 2.2 percent of GDP, a difference of $540 billion a year.
https://cepr.net/publications/patents-and-the-abundance-agenda/

Dean Baker, a smart honest guy:
**Regarding the housing bubble, Baker was critical of Federal Reserve chair Alan Greenspan.[22][23][24] He has also been critical of the regulatory framework of the real estate and financial industries, the use of financial instruments like collateralized debt obligation, and U.S. politicians and regulators' performance and conflicts of interest.**
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dean_Baker



4 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies

Bernardo de La Paz

(53,831 posts)
1. How does it work if companies can't get profits from huge R&D and media investments?
Mon Mar 31, 2025, 10:04 AM
Monday

Who is going to invest in a record company to distribute some new Beyonce album if it could be legally copied and shared instantly without payment?

Why spend $5 billion to develop a better self-driving tech if it can be legally copied and used with out payment?

Excerpt doesn't say how it would work.

Passages

(2,418 posts)
2. I'm not reading where they can't get profits. Fairness is the approach and it is
Mon Mar 31, 2025, 10:12 AM
Monday

discussed in his free book, Rigged. I don't have an excerpt for you to explain the details.

You can read it here and perhaps use search tools for keywords that will address your questions.

https://deanbaker.net/images/stories/documents/Rigged.pdf

Bernardo de La Paz

(53,831 posts)
3. Thanks, but I'm unlikely to read it unless I run across a persuasive argument for the agenda elsewhere
Mon Mar 31, 2025, 10:19 AM
Monday

I'm all for abundance.

I think robotics and AI and other tech will make it possible to pay everyone a basic income of say equivalent to lower middle class. Employment could be partial employment or mostly focused on human to human contact.

IF, if, if fundamental imbalances are corrected. The current wealth & income inequalities are historically unsustainable. Society will not work if 70% of the work force is unemployed, homeless and eating Soylent Green because that's all they can afford.

I just think that erasing patents and copyrights is not going to achieve abundance.

Passages

(2,418 posts)
4. Baker is not advocating erasing patents and or copyrights.
Mon Mar 31, 2025, 10:27 AM
Monday

Nor is he an advocate for Ezra Klein and Thompson's centrist agenda..thus the warning.

Latest Discussions»Editorials & Other Articles»Patents and the Abundance...