Home Invites Members Groups Events Videos News Photos Blogs Polls Chat
Home > Blogs > Post Content

The Secret To The Incredible Wealth Of Bill Gates (5171 hits)


Dean Baker
Co-director, CEPR; author, ¡¥The End of Loser Liberalism: Making Markets Progressive¡¦


Sorry folks, this isn¡¦t Trump University, I don¡¦t have the plan for you to get rich quick. But it is important for everyone to understand exactly why Bill Gates is very rich. It¡¦s called ¡§copyright protection.¡¨


If that sounds strange, imagine a world where everyone could make as many copies as they liked of Windows, Microsoft¡¦s Office Suite, and any other software at no cost. They would only have to send Bill Gates a thank you note, if they felt like it. Bill Gates is undoubtedly a very smart and ambitious guy, but in the world without copyright protection, it is highly unlikely that he would be the world¡¦s richest person.



¡§In the world without copyright protection, it is highly unlikely that [Bill Gates] would be the world¡¦s richest person.





This point may be simple and obvious, but it seems to have been lost on most of the people arguing about inequality. In these discussions we hear continual expressions of concern over how technology is behind the massive upward redistribution of income we have seen in the last four decades. This upward redistribution is usually treated as an unfortunate fact of nature. Even if we don¡¦t like to see the rich continually get richer at the expense of the rest of society, what can we do, stop technology?


This is sort of like a group of seriously overweight people struggling with ways to shed pounds as they gobble down their cheesecake and sip their non-skim latte. A little serious thinking could go a long way.


The story of Bill Gates¡¦ copyright protection, along with patent protection for prescription drugs and all sorts of other things, are a big part of the story of inequality. The key issue is that these protections are created by the government; they don¡¦t come from the technology. It is the protections that make some people very rich, not the technology.


We grant patent and copyright monopolies in order to provide an incentive for innovation and creative work. It is arguable whether these mechanisms are the best way to provide these incentives. For example, in addition to making drugs very expensive, even when they would be cheap in a free market, patent protection also provides an enormous incentive for drug companies to misrepresent the safety and effectiveness of their drugs. But the key point for the inequality issue is that the strength and length of these monopolies is set by government policy.


We can think of these factors as being like a water faucet, if we want more incentives we make patents and copyrights longer and stronger, turning the faucet up. That means more money will go to people who benefit from owning patents and copyrights. This money will come out of the pockets of the rest of us when we pay higher prices for our drugs, software, and everything else subject to patent and copyright protection.



¡§It is the protections that make some people very rich, not the technology.





On the other hand, if we are worried that too much money is going to the people who benefit from patent and copyright protection then the simple answer is turn down the faucet. That means shorten and weaken patent and copyright protection. That should be about as simple as it gets.


In the last four decades our policy has been very much in the direction of longer and stronger. In the case of copyrights, the term was lengthened to 55 years to 95 years. It was extended to digital media as the Internet developed. In fact, the government even prohibited the selling of various digital devices until they included effective locks that blocked unauthorized reproductions. Recent legislation has made Internet intermediaries into copyright cops, requiring them to police their sites to ensure they are not allowing for the unauthorized distribution of copyrighted material. The entertainment industry continually pushes measures like the Stop on Line Piracy Act (SOPA) which would make the copyright cop requirements even stronger.


Patent length has also been extended, going from 14 or 17 years from the date of issuance (depending on the type of patent) to 20 years from the date of application. The law also provides for extensions in the event the approval process was overly long. The scope of patentable products has been hugely expanded so that it now covers life-forms, software, and business methods. We have also made it far easier for individuals and corporations to obtain patents on research that was conducted largely with public funding. In addition, in the case of prescription drugs, we have added new forms of protection in the form of data and marketing exclusivity that preclude generic competition even in cases where there are no binding patents.


We have also pushed the case for patent and copyright protection overseas, making it a top priority in trade deals like the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP). Instead of using our economic and political power to push for things like labor rights or a better environment, we have demanded that other countries pay Disney more for its movies and Pfizer more for its drugs. In fact, one of the provisions in the TPP actually requires member countries to impose criminal penalties for some types of copyright violation.


These and other expansions of patent and copyright protection are all done out in the open. It¡¦s not necessary to gain access to secret files or have an informer with access to inside information. Anyone who cared would know that making these protections stronger has been a central tenet of the economic policy pursued by both political parties over the last four decades. The predicted and actual effect of this policy is to redistribute income to the owners of patents and copyrights, in other words to redistribute income upward.


It might seem obvious then, if the concern is the upward redistribution of income that we should look to weakening these protections. But somehow, the policy folks who debate inequality never seem to notice patents and copyrights. They just keep eating their cheesecake.

Follow Dean Baker on Twitter: www.twitter.com/DeanBaker13

Source: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/
Posted By: Cheer Leader
Tuesday, June 21st 2016 at 2:12PM
You can also click here to view all posts by this author...

Report obscenity | post comment
Share |
Please Login To Post Comments...
Email:
Password:

 
More From This Author
DING DONG DING DONG: HOW MANY HBCUs WERE MENTIONED IN TODAYs “BOOKS & BABES”UPDATEs
Feliz Dia de Abuelos
Doing Business in The Bahamas: The Bahamas as a Nearshore Business, Operations & Investment Destination
Cheesy watercress stars
(2000) Jim Carrey: "The Grinch" Uncut Interview
CBS Mailbag: Dave's Extreme Eggnog Tradition | Letterman
CBS Mailbag: Dave's Extreme Eggnog Tradition | Letterman
Movie Trailer: Great American Family’s ’12 Games of Christmas’
Forward This Blog Entry!
Blogs Home

(Advertise Here)
Latest Photos
>> more | add
Latest Member Activity
ingrid jones just became a new member. 11:44AM
josiah sweeting just became a new member. 04:37PM
obioma richardson just edited her profile. 07:21PM
obioma richardson just became a new member. 07:10PM
bettie smith just became a new member. 03:07PM
t.d. faison just posted a blog entitled 't.d faison, robert townsend and trinese at event in atlanta... '. 12:09PM
t.d. faison just posted a blog entitled 't.d faison and anika noni rose in manhattan... '. 12:04PM
robbie ware just became a new member. 01:44PM
john silver just edited his profile. 02:46PM
john silver just became a new member. 02:17PM
louise gaile just edited her profile. 11:54AM
william brown just became a new member. 04:32PM
>> more | invite friends