The inhabitants of Colorado ARE responsible for the actions of there "stupid governor" - they voted for him. It is not Amazon's fault that the majority of Coloradans elected who they did.

Can't satisfy everyone - I read the blog posts but never watch the videos!

How does the RIAA choose its "victims"? 37 songs is basically the equivalent of a double-CD and seems pretty trivial. Surely there are millions of kids who download more than this?

And now for the rest.. General point: I did not say that it was impossible for innovation to take place without patents, but rather that I did not believe (in the context of the modern pharmaceuticals industry) that it made much business sense to spend money developing new drugs if other companies can simply copy (the Italian story prior to 1978 suggests that I may be right). (My fault if I was not specific enough.) It can take over a decade to develop a new drug, and can cost hundreds of millions of dollars. Why make this investment if an imitator can churn out copy-cat products? Surely it would be more lucrative to focus on developing efficient production techniques, marketing and brand-building? "Creative imitation" is not a bad business strategy if you can get away with it. Switzerland - I did not restrict my response merely to what you had said, but chose to expand my comment to Europe broadly as Europe in the 19th and 20th century is often used as an example of innovation without patents. With regards to Switzerland specifically, I pointed out that they have had process patents for most of the 20th century, so one has to go back to the 19th century to figure out what the Swiss situation was without patents. Firstly, there was not much a of global pharmaceutical industry back in the 19th century, which is why patent critics inevitably end-up trying to compare the dye and chemical industry in the 19th century to the pharmaceuticals industry in the 21st century. I am not entirely sure that this is a valid comparison. The processes required to bring a product to market in the dye industry in the 19th century are not that similar to the processes required to bring drugs to market today (clinical trials anyone?). Public health interests (and indeed patent legislation) require a certain amount of transparency when it comes to drug formulations, etc which would not have applied to 19th century dye sellers. Secondly, the lack of patents does not necessarily imply that the Swiss were unable to protect there innovations. Research by Petra Moser suggests that 19th century companies, in countries without patent protection, tended to focus there efforts in sectors where secrecy could achieve similar results as a patent. This is not a bad position to be in. The Swiss were able to copy their foreign competitors (patents require a certain amount of disclosure), and at the same time prevent (or delay) their foreign competitors from copying them (via trade secrets), or even patents in the foreign countries. This coupled with a myriad of other reasons would certainly have made Switzerland an attractive place to do business. I cannot challenge your contention that the Swiss were innovative before patents as this is difficult to quantify (count patents?). Petra Moser has however done work in this field. Moser studied the catalogs of the 19th century world fairs and found that the Swiss were major exhibitors (per capita). Although this research is usually used to justify the view that the Swiss were very innovative (before patents), I think presence at a trade show is just as likely to be indicative of superior marketing (which fits in with my views quite nicely). Finally, patents do not seem to have harmed the Swiss pharmaceutical industry in any real way as they are still major players today. PS What is with the sudden moderation of my comments :)

Until recently my government believed that beetroot and olive oil was the solution to the HIV pandemic - I would rather not rely on them for my health! (and at significant cost, I don't).

I agree to a certain extent. Although I shudder at the alternative to the profit motive - I certainly do not trust bigoted politicians to make these choices (and they are the alternative.) re: patent lifespan - a "use it of lose it" rule might also be a good idea.

The work you quoted from by Boldrin & Levine is titled "Against Intellectual Monopoly" ...say no more.

The belief that Europe was without medical and chemical patents is something of a misnomer. When a company developed a new drug/chemical the process was patentable. A rival could only produce a "clone" product if they could develop a new process of manufacture...hardly a simple exercise. The Germans had process patents BEFORE the 20th century, while the Swiss got process patents in 1907. This also explains the innovation and creativity demonstrated in these countries (often in developing new processes!). It should also be noted that although companies in these countries were not permitted patents for specific chemical substances, they were not prevented from registering patents (and earning monopoly revenues) in countries where such patents were permitted. As for Italy, they were a major producer and exporter until 1978, when they they were no longer permitted to "pirate" drugs developed elsewhere - after that, as you say, they were "decimated" - this seems logical - I would not expect an industry focused on producing generics to be competitive at developing new commercially viable products. In their defense, Italy at this time (end of the 1970's and early 1980's) faced a variety of general problems (stagflation, civil unrest, oil crisis, etc), which may also have contributed to the collapse of the industry.

Not what I said. Without patent protection, there would be competition...in making existing drugs more efficiently and cheaply, but there would be very few new drugs (of course I cannot prove this, as it has not happened yet, but it seems logical to me). Currently drug patents give the holders a brief competitive advantage allowing them to maximize profits. Without patent protection why would profit-seeking businesses develop new drugs?

Why would a pharmaceutical / biotech company develop anything if is not going to be patent-protected? The moment they come up with a good product they would be swamped with generic copycats. Selling t-shirts is not going to pay the bills.