Over at Marginal Revolution, Alex Tabarrok summarizes his new paper on the disconnect between the economic theory of patents and the political reality of patent law. Prof. Tabarrok was kind enough to send me a pdf of the paper, in which he points out the absurdity, from an economic point of view, of rewarding “inventors” with 20-year monopolies on ideas of the kind that occur while taking a shower: ideas like Amazon.com’s infamous patent on “one-click purchasing.” He proposes a system in which the scope of the patent – its length or its breadth – would vary with the amount of sunk costs that go into the invention.

The best quote of the paper:

Edison famously that “Genius is one percent inspiration, ninety-nine percent perspiration.” A patent system should reward the ninety-nine percent perspiration, not the one percent inspiration.

Also noteworthy are studies he cites showing that “most innovations would occur without patents.” The notable exceptions – the chemical industry and the pharmaceutical industry, where firms do face major development costs.

(And the paper is accessible even to a non-economist like me. So if you have any interest at all in intellectual property law, get Prof. Tabarrok to send you a copy.)

My alma mater is hosting a lecture on string theory by University of Maryland professor James Sylvester Gates, Jr., tomorrow evening at 7 pm.

It looks to be terrificly interesting. Unfortunately, I have tickets for Hedwig and the Angry Inch at TheatreWorks tommorow evening – which my wife will undoubtedly enjoy more than a physics lecture.

Martin Devon has some tough questions for the so-called “Deaniacs” in his weblog, while Steven Taylor notes that Dean is essentially conceding the February 3rd primaries to Edwards and Kerry. I’ve long suspected that Howard Dean and Wes Clark are both “empty vessels” that gained much of their support based on voters’ projection of the attitudes they’d like their ideal candidate to have, rather than gaining much support on the part of their own articulated beliefs. Indeed, in Dean’s more candid moments, he’s practically admitted that he’s tailored his campaign to appeal to the “angry Democrat” base, rather than being committed to those beliefs from the start—witness his flip-flop on the merits of Bush presidency from prior to 2002 and afterwards, for example.*

Projection effects aren’t unique to these two campaigns, or even politics in general; it’s part of human psychology to assume that the people we like agree with us on political issues, and for us to want our friends and neighbors to share our beliefs. But trying to build a political movement around a candidate who is simply a target for projection is largely doomed to failure—the only modern president to win an election on such an empty platform is Eisenhower, whose historical status as a war hero is much less doubtful than Wes Clark’s and whose political skills effectively reached across the partisan divide.

The key question is whether or not Dean can recover. The conventional wisdom says “no,” and I suspect that’s right—particularly as long as Clark is around to divide the “mainstream strident anti-war candidate” vote and (more fatally) John Kerry continues to rack up primary wins. Kerry could credibly sweep next Tuesday, especially with the Jim Clyburn endorsement in South Carolina. The endorsement of Kerry from South Carolina’s only black congressman may tip the balance against John Edwards in the one state he clearly must win Tuesday, although Edwards probably also needs to win Virginia and Tennessee on February 10th to remain viable.

And, speaking only for myself, the sooner both Clark and Dean are gone from this campaign the better.

No, this isn’t the post I promised yesterday. Hopefully I’ll have something either tonight or tomorrow. But, regardless, we be jammin’ as they say…