Cato’s Doug Bandow argues in favor of patents on the grounds that lack of patent rights would threaten pharmaceutical innovations. Ironically, Cato scholar Tom Palmer has argued extensively and carefully, contra his boss Bandow, that patents are not compatible with property rights (scroll down; two articles on left side of Palmer’s page). I wonder why Bandow ignores his own IP guru’s work? I wonder when Cato shifted from being principled, anarchist, natural rights oriented to being minarchist, utilitarian oriented? Maybe they’re reading Liberty magazine too much over there.
