Against Intellectual Monopoly

of it entirely. So, although we are skeptical of the idea of immediately and
permanently eliminating intellectual monopoly, the long-term goal should
be no less than a complete elimination. A phased reduction in the length
of terms of both patents and copyrights would be the right place to start.
By gradually reducing terms, it becomes possible to make the necessary
adjustments - for example, to FDA regulations, publishing techniques and
practices, software development and distribution methods - while at the
same time making a commitment to eventual elimination.
    Given that it may well be the case that some modest degree of intellectual monopoly is superior to complete abolition, why do we set as a goal
complete elimination of intellectual property? Our position on intellectual monopoly is not different than the position most economists take on trade
restrictions: although some modest amount of protection might be desirable
in special cases, it is more practical and useful to focus on the elimination
of restrictions as a general rule. Similarly, although some modest amount
of intellectual monopoly might be desirable in very special cases, it is more
practical and useful to focus on the elimination of intellectual monopoly
as a general rule. In innovation as in trade, a modest degree of monopoly
is not sustainable. Once the lobbyist's nose is inside the tent, the entire
lobby is sure to follow, and we will once again face a broken patent system
and absurdly long copyright terms. To secure our prosperity and freedom,
we must abolish intellectual monopoly from the tent entirely. To do so, we
must develop the very same patient determination with which we have been
after trade restrictions for more than half a century, and we are not done
yet.

    This analogy between intellectual property and trade restrictions is not
a purely rhetorical tool nor a random comparison. For centuries, human
innovative activity took the form of creating new consumption goods, new
machines, and new staples of food. But the transmission of ideas from one
producer to another and across countries was not nearly as fast, standardized, or routinized as it is today. Creative human activity was focused on the
creation and reproduction of physical goods and not on the creation and
reproduction of ideas. Free trade of commodities was therefore key to the
fostering of progress: the more competitors came in with shoes like yours,
the more you had to improve on your shoes to keep selling them.
    This dialectic we used to call economic progress, and, after a few centuries
of intellectual debate and numerous wars, Western societies came to understand that restricting international trade was damaging because protectionism prevents economic progress and fosters international tensions leading
to conflict. Since at least the late Middle Ages, the battle has been between
the forces of progress, individual freedom, competition, and free trade
and the forces of stagnation, regulation of individual actions, monopoly,
and trade protection. Now that the intellectual and political battle over
free trade of physical goods seems won, and an increasing number of less
advanced countries are joining the progressive ranks of free-trading nations,
pressure to make intellectual property protection stronger is mounting in
those very same countries that advocate free trade. This is not coincidence.
    Most physical goods already are and, in the decades to come, will increasingly be, produced in less developed countries. Most innovations and
creations are taking place in the advanced world, and the information
technology and bioengineering revolutions suggest that this will continue for a while at least. It is not surprising, then, that a new version of the
eternal parasite of economic progress - mercantilism - is emerging in the
rich countries of North America, Europe, and Asia.

    Economic progress springs from having things produced as efficiently
as possible so that they can sell at the lowest price. This wisdom applies
to both the things we buy and to those we sell, and therein lies the trap of
mercantilism. Most of us have learned that the surest way to make a profit is
to buy cheap and sell dear. When there is adequate competition and everyone
tries to buy cheap and sell dear, then the only way I can buy cheap and sell
dear is if I am more efficient than you are. This generates incentives for
innovation and progress. The trap