Talk:Tragedy of the anticommons

message: Hickman, J. and Dolman, E.: "Resurrecting the Space Age: A State-Centered Commentary on the Outer Space Regime," Comparative Strategy, Vol. 21, No. 1, 2002.
What has this got to do with the article?
Mr. Jones 14:18, 23 Mar 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Irrelevant reference? 

message: ...there is no hierarchy among owners such that the decision of one owner can dominate those of other owners, forcing them to use their resources in ways they would not, if they were permitted free will by the authority.
This should discuss the input of additional information, rather than just describe centralised control as if it were the only solution. 
Mr. Jones 14:18, 23 Mar 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  A prescription of heirarchy? 

message: surely there are some juicy and enlightening examples? like the grazing cattle in Tragedy of the commons? and more familiar than Heller's empty russian shops? regards, High on a tree 01:48, 21 Aug 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: How about the whole mess of copyrights and patents? There are certainly many juicy and enlightening examples of copyrights causing severe under-exploitation of information (i.e. many people who could put the information to productive use are unable to access it). -- Mihnea Tudoreanu 13:07, 3 Oct 2004 (UTC)
replies: text:  I don't think copyrights are an example of this phenomenon, at least most of the time.  Usually a copyright is held by one person or at least one decision-making entity (e.g., a literary agent acting on behalf of all of a given author's living descendants, or the manager of a corporation that owns copyright in works for hire).  If an author's estate is set up so all his descendants have veto rights on reprints of his work, that would be an example of this, but I don't know of any actual cases.    -- Jim Henry, 30 Nov 2004
Copyrights generate many example of this phenomenon when *derivative works* are involved.  Television shows which use music, plays based on books, movies based on plays based on books, etc., provide dozens of examples; as does computer software, where code based on a previous programmer's work is very common.  In addition, in music the overlapping rights to a *song* and to the *recording* (phonogram) of the song can cause trouble. 24.59.111.200 14:57, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  examples, please 

message: "This is the canonical justification for the takings clause in the US Constitution and eminent domain generally."  
I would say this is incorrect and confusing the issues.  Canonically, takings are to satisfy a public use, NOT to correct a market inefficiency.  While much of the current backlash over eminent domain's use stems from its application in cases of market inefficiency (where properties are not reaching their highest and best use).  Granted, many of Heller's arguments are critical of the use of takings in such instances.  But to say that it is the basis of the takings clause is not supported by the law's text or long history.
This sentence is bad; the takings clause is a restriction on public domain, not a statement of the acceptability of public domain seizures.  Removing the reference to the takings clause. 24.59.111.200 14:59, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  takings, eminent domain 

message: Seems to me DVD players are a bad example. Considering the hundreds of brands of DVD players available worldwide, I'd say its hardly an under exploited market. The patents and copyrights parts also smell fishy. Its as though the author of these is attempting to grind an axe here.
:DVD players were not used as an example, rather mentioned as something that possibly could have been affected. But the patent holders have choosen to cooperate regarding DVD players and create patent pools to make it easy to build correctly licensed DVD playes, something that is relatively rare. There are many examples of where the patent holders haven't made any agreement, effectively stopping all development of anything new. 109.58.27.42 (talk) 09:35, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  bad examples abound 

message: The Chinese nail houses are not really an example of this. Yes, the economic use is being hampered by a single owner who refuses to sell, but a shopping center could be build without removing the house. The real issues with nail houses are access and utility rights, as it appears there is no such thing in China. In the United States, the developer is legally obligated to provide access and utilities to the holdout property.
71.212.22.51 (talk) 14:21, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: A caption reads: 'Chongqing "nail house" refused to leave it, thwarting plans for a shopping mall. '  I don't like commenting on China as I am not a Chinese speaker.  Apparently the nail house was removed and the project went forward.   If so the caption using the term "thwart" is incorrect as thwart implied prevention.  So negotiations while unsightly delayed but did not thwart the project.  In the end a legal remedy like eminent domain was not necessary. Geo8rge (talk) 20:52, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nail house 

message: The assertion that:
In fact, a patent holder can often say that mere research is an infringing use, and demand a license fee even though the chance of developing a marketable product is slim.
is incorrect.  
While it may claim infringement, the patent holder is not the arbiter in cases of patent dispute: that is the job of the courts.  Demand of a license fee by the patent holder does not equate to automatic acceptance of payment by the alleged infringer, especially in drug discovery.  35 U.S.C. §271(e)(1) specifically states:
It shall not be an act of infringement to make, use, offer to sell, or sell within the United States or import into the United States a patented invention (other than a new animal drug or veterinary biological product (as those terms are used in the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act and the Act of March 4, 1913) ...) solely for uses reasonably related to the development and submission of information under a Federal law which regulates the manufacture, use, or sale of drugs
This "FDA safe harbour" usage has been established in pharmaceutical research in a US Supreme Court case from 2005, Merck KGaA, Petitioner v. Integra Lifesciences I, Ltd., et al, which overturned a Federal Court upholding of a District Court decision to award damages, from which the decision was that:
The Court held that the use of patented compounds in preclinical studies is protected under [35 U.S.C.] §271(e)(1) at least as long as there is a reasonable basis to believe that the compound tested could be the subject of an FDA submission and the experiments will produce the types of information relevant to an IND or NDA. Daen (talk) 14:59, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Use of patented technology in research 

message: Doesn't every project previewing Veto rights suffer from this very effect?
In the European Union 27 member states have to agree on every major decision. This is one reason, the EU is still seated in three different cities, which causes extra costs. Every time they try to quit one place, the affected country would oppose. So everyone suffers by trying to get out the best for themselves.--Joschi (talk) 16:14, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  European Union and UNO security counsel 

message: I've marked 2 sentences in article lead as {dubious}. Per WP:BURDEN, burden of evidence lies on the editor who adds or restores challenged material, so if no references are provided within reasonable time (usually 1 month is considered enough, but I'm certainly not in a hurry), I may proceed with re-removing them. As a side note: while I strongly suspect big portions of WP:OR/WP:SYN there, without references it is difficult to argue, so let's wait for references and discuss if it is WP:OR/WP:SYN then. Ipsign (talk) 10:46, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: As WP:CHALLENGE says: "Anything challenged or likely to be challenged" requires a reliable source, and {citation needed} is one widely accepted way to challenge, so it is challenged now, and therefore requires WP:RS. On your (1): this argument doesn't fly at all (in part because Wikipedia itself is not WP:RS: it is the table you're referring to which can be in error, especially as it is itself unsourced). On your argument (2): sure, the article may not be about neologism, but should be about concept. But Wikipedia may not invent the concept and may not interpret it (per WP:V and WP:NOR); if the concept Tragedy of the anticommons really exists outside of Wikipedia, it should have been described somewhere (ideally - in peer-reviewed materials), and therefore references should be available. In particular, it must not be Wikipedians who decide what exactly is included under this term/concept (for example, whether it is really related to submarine patents) - doing this would be an obviously unverifiable claim in violation of WP:V (and will be WP:OR//WP:SYN too); for example, to justify inclusion of submarine patents into the challenged sentence, there should be an article/book which explicitly mentions submarine patents as one of the issues under the concept of Tragedy of anticommons. Therefore, my objection still stands: both these sentences are staying challenged, and unless citations are provided, will be removed as unverifiable (please note that I do not need to discuss whether these sentences are wrong - they may be right, but as long as they're not verifiable - they don't belong to Wikipedia regardless). Oh and BTW, please make sure not to remove {citation needed} tags until references are provided. Ipsign (talk) 05:33, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Marked dubious statements

message: This article begins
:The tragedy of the anticommons is a coordination breakdown where the existence of numerous rightsholders frustrates achieving a socially desirable outcome. It mirrors the older tragedy of the commons used to describe coordination breakdowns arising from insufficient rightsholders. [underlining added -- Thnidu (talk)]
That second definition is just plain wrong. The article Tragedy of the commons begins
:In economics, the tragedy of the commons is the depletion of a shared resource by individuals, acting independently and rationally according to each one's self-interest, despite their understanding that depleting the common resource is contrary to the group's long-term best interests.
Such a situation involves plenty of rightsholders, perhaps too many, each valuing their own short-term self-interest above the community's long-term interests.
The article attributes the phrase to Michael Heller in his 1998 article. The abstract of that article is accessible directly from the reference. There he says [list formatting added to bring out the parallel structures in Heller's text]
: Anticommons property can be understood as the mirror image of commons property. By definition,
:* in a commons, 
:** multiple owners are each endowed with the privilege to use a given resource, 
:**and no one has the right to exclude another. 
:**When too many owners have such privileges of use, the resource is prone to overuse -- a tragedy of the commons. 
:*In an anticommons, by my definition, 
:**multiple owners are each endowed with the [right]* to exclude others from a scarce resource, 
:**and no one has an effective privilege of use. 
:**When there are too many owners holding rights of exclusion, the resource is prone to underuse -- a tragedy of the anticommons.
* [The abstract says "fight", evidently a typo.]
It's not a shortage of rightsholders that creates a tragedy of the commons, it's their combined overuse of the resource. I've rewritten the first paragraph to correct the definition, express the two definitions in parallel, and generally tighten up the writing. (The verb "mirror" as quoted above means "same sort of thing", the very opposite of Heller's expression "mirror image". Isn't English fun?) --Thnidu (talk) 07:12, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Inadequate definition of "tragedy of the commons" 

message: Both theories 'comedy of the commons' and 'tragedy of the anticommons' discuss way in which the commons can be beneficial and what is lost when there is a lack of commons. Only one article is needed. However, the article should be renamed see section below.Jonpatterns (talk) 12:57, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: And yes, if it's all merged, the proposed rename below makes sense as well.Volunteer Marek (talk) 18:49, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: This would be my most preferred solution as well.Volunteer Marek (talk) 17:29, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge from comedy of the commons 

message: There are a number of theories that critique the tragedy of the commons it would be good to have one article covering them all.Jonpatterns (talk) 12:57, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Rename to Criticism of the tragedy of the commons

message: Why is a good outcome of common ownership a 'Comedy of the commons', when the good outcome out for private ownership 'Successful capitalism'? Jonpatterns (talk) 16:14, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Because one particular Wikipedia editor believes very strongly that this is so. No other reason.Volunteer Marek (talk) 00:54, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Good outcomes 

message: Re . Seriously. This table is original research, as I've repeatedly pointed out on all the articles that GliderMaven is trying to spam this into.
The idea that "Tragedy of the anticommons" is "related to" these three other "concepts" is original research. It's unsourced. It's one Wikipedia user's opinion. Show me a source which actually says "Tragedy of the anticommons is related to these three other concepts"
The idea that there's a 2x2 categorization of these concepts is original research.
The idea that some of these concepts, like the "comedy of the commons", are notable is original research.
The idea is that this conceptualization is useful enough to be presented in a table is original research. For example "successful capitalism", whatever the funk that is, probably entails components of BOTH public and private ownership. 
Etc.
It's simple. Find a source which has a table like this in it, or at least a source which categorizes these very concepts like this. Otherwise it's... original research. Unsourced original research. And that gets removed.Volunteer Marek (talk) 00:54, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  original research table 

message: Duch-Brown et al (2017) discuss the anticommons in their European Commission Joint Research Centre (JRC) working paper on data property rights.
  Generated 2 March 2017.
Someone may like to work that material into this article?  With best wishes.  RobbieIanMorrison (talk) 12:48, 15 March 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  European data policy 

message: added info below, feel free to critique/remove as you see fit.
Added as an elaboration of definition
"Here, the right of an individual to exclude others from accessing or using a resource results in the underutilisation of a resource. The lack of synergy between use rights and exclusion rights causes a net welfare loss, as the individuals exercising their right to exclude do not completely internalise the cost of excluding others."
Another paragraph in short description
"Based on the non-conformity between use and exclusion rights, Parisi, Schultz and Depoorter (2002) have presented two cases to model the anticommons tragedy: simultaneous and sequential. The simultaneous case is where multiple individuals exercise their exclusion rights simultaneously as well as individually on the same level of the value chain. For example, multiple co-owners with veto rights on a shared resource. The sequential case is where exclusion rights are exercised in successive order on different levels of the value chain. For example, entities on a hierarchy exercising their veto power on a proposal." 
Another paragraph under examples
"The Greek government-debt crisis demonstrates the tragedy of the anticommons in the political economy. Sixteen countries in the Eurozone agreed to contribute to the bailout program. Here, coordination is dependent on the availability of information. Given that there is no information asymmetry and knowledge is shared between each country, this means the agreement of the bailout plan is enforceable and executable. However, each donor country failed to coordinate and carried out their own separate plans. This competitiveness and non-cooperative approach of the Eurozone countries resulted in a coordination fail and exacerbated Greece’s government debt crisis."
S4395221 (talk) 03:53, 1 May 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  additional info added