Techne

It is correct, as Demsetz stated, that the neoclassical price system just assumed private ownership in its systems (the marxists were actually more aware of this problem. A student of Ronald H. Coase, he referred to Coase's classic investigation in 1959 of radio spectrum regulation thatled to the Coase Theorem.

In a small society primitive society he argued that collectivism of ownership is possible, but since specialization (with its increased efficiency) property has to be protected. he gave an excellent example of the beneficial effects of establishing property regarding to the fur trade in North America. The increased overhunting of fur animals was mainly due to them being seen as a communal property, hence no one took resposibility for them. The value of furs increased due to the externality of overhunting, but in the end all would loose if they were extinguished. But establishing property rights for hunting grounds made the farmer families take care not to overhunt.

Professor Hazlett discussed the "barbed wireless" and the vertical structure of property rights. He made a most interesting speech, but since he has asked for not citing or quoting his paper without his permission I am going to respect that. Suffice to say that I did not completely share his criticism of Lawrence Lessig.

There certainly are new issues regarding the security, exclusivity, permanence and transferability of intellectual property. What worries me most is to protect the buyer's right to his new property, and I do not agree with professor Hazlett that the issues of "sticky IP" is so easily resolved. In the end we will need a form of intellectual property, but what it will look? Well, that is an issue for negotionation on market, of observing the transformationism of the catallaxy. It is something that has happened before and will happen again, but us liberals will have examine our positions and propose sharper arguments in the debate about intellectual property.