Against Intellectual Monopoly

incentives to pirate foreign innovators, but they still discriminated heavily
against foreign citizens and innovations until the 1861 reform; pirating of foreign
inventions, especially British ones, was thriving. Notice the interesting fact: all these
practices just amounted to imitation, or piracy, in modern jargon, rewarded with
local monopoly! This is something worth keeping in mind in light of current sermons
against Indian, Chinese, Mexican, and Brazilian people pirating "our" inventions.
Our reading of historical records is that all this "reciprocal stealing" had no effect
on the total amount of inventions.
    4. If you care to read more, a few good books from where to start are Epstein and
Maarten (2005), Khan (2005), esp. Chapter 2, and Landes (1969, 1998). A recent
and fairly unbiased synthesis of the historical literature concerned with the impact
of patents on the Industrial Revolution and inventive activity during the eighteenth
and nineteenth centuries, MacLeod and Nuvolari (2006) p. 22, concludes:
    However, it would be wrong to assume that the emergence of patent systems played
a critical or determinant role in such a transition. The evidence discussed in this
paper has shown that the institutional arrangements supporting inventive activities
in this historical phase were extremely variegated and sophisticated.... In other
words, the roots of western industrialization seem to have been wider and deeper
than the emergence of modern patent systems.
    5. Scherer (2004), p. 191. It should be apparent that everything we know about the
impact of copyright on classical music we have learned from Scherer (2004), and
his sources. An additional valuable reference for the details relative to the extension
of the Statute of Anne to musical compositions is Carroll (2005).
    6. Lamoreaux and Sokoloff (2002), pp. 7-8. The research work of Khan, Lamoreux,
and Sokoloff we mention is covered in a variety of articles and books, including the
book by Khan (2005), which contains a very broad bibliography. On the growth of
intermediaries and their role, see Lamoreaux and Sokoloff (2002).
    7. Moser (2003), p. 3.
    8. Ibid., p. 6.
    9. Ibid., p. 6.
    10. Moser (2003), pp. 34-35. Petra Moser's dissertation, which won the 2003 Ger-
schenkron Prize awarded by the Economic History Association to the best dissertation in the field, is a mine of valuable information on the role of patents in determining innovative activity during the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries.
The main findings are summarized in Moser (2003).

    11. Moser (2005, 2006).
    12. Moser (2006), abstract.
    13. All the empirical studies listed in the long table can be found in the references at the
end. The data about patents come from the 2003 Annual Report of the U.S. Patent
and Trademark Office, which can be found online at http://www.uspto.gov/web/
offices/com/annual. Additional basic data is from http://www.cms.hhs.gov.
    14. Arundel (2001).
    15. Gallini (2002), p. 139.
    16. Jaffe (2000), abstract.
    17. Ibid., p. 555.
    18. Lerner (2002), p. 2.
    19. Leger (2004), p. 9.
    20. Bessen (2005), abstract.
    21. Bessen and Hunt (2003), abstract.
    22. Hall and Ham (1999), abstract.
    23. Lanjouw (1997), p. 32.
    24. Licht and Zoz (1996), p. 1.
    25. Qian (2007), abstract.
    26. Sakakibara and Branstetter (2001), abstract.
    27. Gilson (1999). We quote from p. 16 of the original version (Working Paper 163,
Stanford Law School, John M. Olin Program in Law and Economics, August 1998).
    28. Ibid., p. 35.
    29. Ibid., p. 36.
    30. Ibid., p. 40. Kenney and von Burg (2000) also provide a great deal of information
on the Route 128 versus Silicon Valley story.
    31. Saxenian (1994), p. 46.
    32. Maurer and Scotchmer (1999), p. 1129.
    33. Ibid.
    34. Ibid., p. 1130.
    35. Maurer and Scotchmer (1999), p. 1129. A great deal of additional information about
databases can be found in Block (2000), David (2001), Maurer (1999), Maurer,
Firestone, and Scriver (2000).
    36. Block (2000), p. 7.
    37. Carnegie (1905), Chapter 3, p. 50.
    38. To learn about Marconi and his contested invention, we started with Hong (2001), if
anything because he tries harder than most to show that there was no simultaneous
invention. On the Web, one can find lots of well-structured sites; we have made
use of Marconi's page at Wikipedia - where we learned about Popov, in particular:
that he was not a fraud, as one of us had been taught in junior high, and that
he "died in 1905 and his claim