Even hardcore IP advocates conceded patents chiefly protect monopolies

Evidence

The neoliberal discourse on IP is nonetheless contextual and internally heterogeneous. Even the consensus around the so-called Posnerian utilitarian position is not absolute. As mentioned above, Posner himself has argued that there might be too many patents in America. The writings of one-time MPS member Douglass C. North, winner of the Bank of Sweden Nobel Memorial Prize in 1993, offers a further example. While North argued himself for the centrality of patents to innovation, he also suggested that the system that had developed in the US failed to provide adequate incentives. In 2009, he argued that “most of what patents and copyrights are about is the protection of monopolies, not the encouragement of more rapid development.” — Dieter Plehwe, Quinn Slobodian & Philip Mirowski (eds.), Nine Lives of Neoliberalism, 193

Categorization

• XREF: Connects to North’s broader institutionalist work on incentives and to the volume’s running theme that MPS figures diverged from a single pro-IP line. — connects to: Pro-corporate IP advocacy replaced competition discourse with protection and exclusion language — Dieter Plehwe, Quinn Slobodian & Philip Mirowski (eds.), Nine Lives of Neoliberalism, 198; Neoliberal IP orthodoxy was dictated by corporate lobbyists, not market theorists — Dieter Plehwe, Quinn Slobodian & Philip Mirowski (eds.), Nine Lives of Neoliberalism, 200; Monopolies express competition rather than contradict it — Clara E. Mattei, Escape from Capitalism, 138 (+4 more)

Broader Connections

• Director saw patents as crucial to creating and maintaining industrial monopoly. #exemplifies (0.90) — Philip Mirowski & Dieter Plehwe (eds.), The Road from Mont Pèlerin, 1092
• Pro-corporate IP advocacy replaced competition discourse with protection and exclusion language #corroborates (0.85) — Dieter Plehwe, Quinn Slobodian & Philip Mirowski (eds.), Nine Lives of Neoliberalism, 198
• Monopolies express competition rather than contradict it #contradicts (0.80) — Clara E. Mattei, Escape from Capitalism, 138
• Eighties IP rhetoric reframed intellectual property as exclusion over competition #expands (0.80) — Dieter Plehwe, Quinn Slobodian & Philip Mirowski (eds.), Nine Lives of Neoliberalism, 198
• Early MPS neoliberals favored weaker patent rights over stronger ones #corroborates (0.78) — Dieter Plehwe, Quinn Slobodian & Philip Mirowski (eds.), Nine Lives of Neoliberalism, 183
• Neoliberal IP orthodoxy was dictated by corporate lobbyists, not market theorists #corroborates (0.75) — Dieter Plehwe, Quinn Slobodian & Philip Mirowski (eds.), Nine Lives of Neoliberalism, 200
• Early neoliberals widely saw patent reform as anti-monopoly competition policy #corroborates (0.72) — Dieter Plehwe, Quinn Slobodian & Philip Mirowski (eds.), Nine Lives of Neoliberalism, 181