Richard Epstein the Peter and Kirsten Bedford Senior Fellow at the Hoover Institution, discusses the flaws in the America Invents Act and considers how to create a patent system that more effectively fosters American innovation.
Epstein discusses the Supreme Court’s review of Koontz v. St. Johns River Water Management District on the John Batchelor Show
Richard Epstein, the Peter and Kirsten Bedford Senior Fellow at the Hoover Institution and a member of the John and Jean De Nault Task Force on Property Rights, Freedom, and Prosperity, speaks to the long-standing conflict between the constitutional protection of property rights and the state’s desire to protect its pristine wetlands, always in short supply, from destruction by real estate development.
Will people one day pay for the digital content that today they receive for free? . . .
Don't thank Republicans, business leaders or the media for saving the U.S. . . .
A native of Zambia, Dambisa Moyo holds a master's degree from Harvard, an MBA from American University and a doctorate in economics from Oxford...
How the Trump administration can shield and spur American innovation.
Hoover Institution Hosts Conference Examining Patent Development and Usage from Varying Perspectives
In today’s rapidly changing business environment, interactions among patents, innovation, and competition are complex and dynamic.
The Hoover Institution Working Group on Intellectual Property, Innovation, and Prosperity (Hoover IP2) held the symposium “Patents and the Innovation Economy” at the Hoover Institution’s DC offices on May 15, 2014.
Corporate taxes already drive U.S. companies offshore. The administration should think twice before making matters even worse. By Peter Robinson.
Does the US patent system as currently constituted hold up or push forward the commercialization of technological innovations? Does the US patent system frustrate or facilitate the inventive activities and entrepreneurial processes central to economic growth? The US patent system is a solution to a delicate balancing act where the complete absence of intellectual property rights or the overly broad specification of those rights can thwart innovation. Inventors require the means to earn a return on the years spent perfecting an invention
If there is one really serious intellectual and cultural problem with capitalism, it stems from the lack of a sustained and widely known, let alone accepted, moral defense of the institution of private property rights.
Few doubt, in today’s world, that a society with a legal infrastructure that lacks this institution is in serious economic trouble. The failure to respect and legally protect the institution of private property—and its corollaries, such as freedom of contract and of setting the terms by the parties to the trade—has produced economic weakness across the globe. But many also believe that this institution is not founded on anything more solid than the arbitrary will of the government to grant privileges of ownership (for the latest statement of this position, see Liam Murphy and Thomas Nagel, The Myth of Ownership [Oxford University Press, 2002]).
Without a moral, prelegal defense, the institution of private property, which is the source of a great many benefits to us all, will forever remain vulnerable to the critics, starting with Karl Marx, who said that “the right of man to property is the right to enjoy his possessions and dispose of the same arbitrarily, without regard for other men, independently from society, the right of selfishness.” This essay argues that, contrary to widespread academic sentiments and impressions, the institution of private property rights fully accords with a sensible conception of human morality, indeed, rests on a solid moral foundation.