A case for Intellectual Property Rights

[Mountain Lion]

Is anyone willing to defend the existent knowledge commodification practices?


What do Intellectual Property Rights mean exactly? Here is one perspective (taken from David Harvey's essay (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.)):

The patenting and licensing of genetic materials, seed plasmas, and all manner of other products, can now be used against whole populations whose management practices have played a crucial role in the development of those materials. Biopiracy is rampant and the pillaging of the world's stockpile of genetic resources is well under way to the benefit of a few large multinational companies. The escalating depletion of the global environmental commons (land, air, water) and proliferating habitat degradations that preclude anything but capital intensive modes of agricultural production have likewise resulted from the wholesale commodification of nature in all its forms. The commodification of cultural forms, histories and intellectual creativity entails wholesale dispossessions (the music industry is notorious for the appropriation and exploitation of grassroots culture and creativity). The corporatization and privatization of hitherto public assets (like universities) to say nothing of the wave of privatization (of water, public utilities of all kinds) that has swept the world indicate a new wave of "enclosing the commons." As in the past, the power of the state is frequently used to force such processes through even against popular will. And this brings us back to the question of class struggle. The reversion of common property rights won through past struggles (the right to a state pension, to welfare, or to national health care) to the private domain has been one of the most egregious of all policies of dispossession pursued in the name of neoliberal orthodoxy. Small wonder that much of the emphasis within the anti-globalization movement in recent times has focused on the theme of reclaiming the commons and attacking the joint role of the state and capital in their appropriation.

For anyone who agrees with the above assessment here is a great source: To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.) and you should read this (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.)as well.

[iamnotspock]

I will take the bait and play devil's advocate, since royalties on software products I wrote keep me in business, even if 90% of the code being used is not "mine" (a web app uses a server OS, client OS, browser, database, application layer, etc. There is really just a thin layer of custom code.)

Basically, as long as the protection applies only to a new composition, and the old composition is left intact, there is no problem. So, we can have new protected software app that uses lots of existing software per their license terms, and this adds an option to the world. You can stick with the old stuff if you like.

The problem is when the new stuff drives the old stuff out of market, as in a monopoly scenario with Microsoft. This forces everyone onto the new platform and destroys diversity, impairing the market-place.

There is a similar risk with genetic food in that the genes can migrate, causing extinction of existing species. That would be in the patent-holders interest, requiring everone to pay a fee to use their gene-modified product.

The solution is not to destroy intellectual property rights -- protected by the constitution they are a source of innovation -- but rather to protect existing natural resources, such as via gene-banks or open-source licenses, and to break-up monopolies where homogeneity threatens to damage the market-place, as in the case of software, or even the eco-system, as in the case of genetics.

How'd I do?

[Mountain Lion]

Reasonably well :) However, what if you and I come up with the same new idea. Only I come up with that idea first. I patent it and exploit it. While you were willing to share that idea with anyone for free, but you can't because the law prevents you from doing that.

New ideas are a product of old common human knowledge, which, in large part, is not licensed. How can an idea based on common knowledge belong only to one individual (who is also a product of human civilization and common knowledge)? S/he could be credited and rewarded but not given monopoly on this idea.

What determines the value of the new idea? Supply and demand? If there is one idea that can be easily replicated by anyone, the only way to make profit is to maintain monopoly on its distribution, utilize marketing strategies that exploit people's vulnerabilities (which might exist due to inadequate education, genetic weaknesses and numerous other forms of structural inequalities) to create artificial demand and inflate prices beyond the original production cost to produce a profit margin that makes one rich and everyone else a fool.

---------------------------------------------------------------

Another interesting point, argued from a capitalist perspective against current use of IPRs:

"Itellectual property” has come to mean not only the right to own and sell ideas, but also the right to regulate their use. This creates a
socially inefficient monopoly, and what is commonly called intellectual
property might be better called “intellectual monopoly.” When you buy a
potato you can eat it, throw it away, plant it or make it into a sculpture.
Current law allows producers of a CDs and books to take this freedom
away from you. When you buy a potato you can use the “idea” of a potato embodied in it to make better potatoes or to invent french fries. Current law allows producers of computer software or medical drugs to take this freedom away from you. It is against this distorted extension of
intellectual property rights that we would like to argue.

[alone]

Reasonably well :) However, what if you and I come up with the same new idea. Only I come up with that idea first. I patent it and exploit it. While you were willing to share that idea with anyone for free, but you can't because the law prevents you from doing that.

That is why patent law tries to prevent patents on things that are easy to discover or obvious.

New ideas are a product of old common human knowledge, which, in large part, is not licensed. How can an idea based on common knowledge belong only to one individual (who is also a product of human civilization and common knowledge)? S/he could be credited and rewarded but not given monopoly on this idea.

Every idea is "based on" previous knowledge. The question is whether the idea contains some alpha - something that makes it more than the sum of its parts. Is it an idea that is not easy to come up with? Was there a need for it for a long period of time, in which no one else was able to conceive of the solution?

Also, patent law is about rewarding innovation. An idea can belong to an individual because the government says so. It is not a fundamental right, but an attempt to reward those who disclose their ideas rather than keep them secret. After 20 years, no one has to pay the patent holder anymore.


What determines the value of the new idea? Supply and demand? If there is one idea that can be easily replicated by anyone, the only way to make profit is to maintain monopoly on its distribution, utilize marketing strategies that exploit people's vulnerabilities (which might exist due to inadequate education, genetic weaknesses and numerous other forms of structural inequalities) to create artificial demand and inflate prices beyond the original production cost to produce a profit margin that makes one rich and everyone else a fool.

The notion that most critics miss is that the idea raised as being 'easily replicated' is not necessarily easily _discovered_. Thus, ex ante, the idea is not there, and society is without its benefit. It is either not discovered yet, or kept secret. By allowing the inventor to capture the extra 'monopoly rent' on his invention, patent law incentivizes the disclosure and cataloging of the idea, and the eventual free use of it. Although ex post (after discovery), it seems nice to let everyone use it for free, it theoretically was exactly that incentive which brought out the idea in the first place.

The counterargument to the above is that under current law, often patents may be granted that would have been made public or discovered anyway, because the ideas are obvious. The answer is that (1) the patent office should do a better job of it, (2) it's not perfect but what is?, (3) maybe obviousness law needs a tweak, etc.

[Aronnax]

Intellectual property rights are a balancing act. On one hand innovation needs enough protection to to make it worth investing in new ideas. On the other hand excessive IP law stifles advances that build on older concepts.

For example, VoiP companies like Vonage provide long distance calls over the internet, an efficient use of bandwidth and a net positive for the economy. Unfortunately the description of the tech that VoiP providers use is close to the description for the old land line system patents held by the Baby Bells. The Baby Bells never bothered to create a VoiP service but when someone stepped up to fill the market demand the Baby Bells used the court system to prop up their failing buisness model. The capital that the Vonage would have used to grow their buisness is now going into the pockets of AT&T and Sprint to setting the lawsuits. This is just a single example, there are examples ranging from the transistors to medicine where excessive patent lifespan has been used to avoid market forces and slow down technological advances.

Excessively long patent life combined with new laws that allow processes to be patented encourage patent squatting. There are now companies that don't produce any products or provide services, instead they patent multiple processes and sit on them. When a legitimate buisness uses a process similar to one of the processes the squatter company owns it goes to court. This behavior also has created a lot of pressure on businesses to continually produce patents to protect themselves "just in case" they need a particular process or idea. They may never intend to develop the idea but have the patent to protect themselves and sue the pants off anyone who attempts to use it. In both situations IP law is hurting innovation rather than encouraging it.

Genetic material shouldn't be protected in the same manner as manufactured goods because they don't operate in the same manner. I'm fine with Monsanto genetically engineering new crops and selling GMO seeds. However, Monsanto shouldn't be able to sue farmers who never bought seeds from them just because pollen blew into their field and their next generation picked up some of the engineered crop's characteristics.


There's a need for patent law but current US law is excessive in duration and scope. Current IP law is leveraged to prop up failing buisness models, pushes inferior products by locking superior ones out, discourages new ideas and is used to push seeds onto farmers who don't actually want to buy them. If the intent of IP law is to encourage innovation it's going to need serious reform.

[PRBori]

I'm surprise...

I'm actually going thru an Intellectual Property Right at my last job for the application I developed so that I can commercialized it in the near future...

I still have to wait 2 weeks, but is worth it. I spend a lot of time putting my baby together and there is a lot more I want to do with it, so whatever it is I'll fight till the end... and make sure I'm recognized for it.


That said I find such right essential and I'm glad there is such available for people like me at least in my area... not sure about the rest.

[Metafire]

Today's patent system really seems to be annoying. I have an alternative idea: Instead of having patent taxes patents should be free / open source. But the inventor should get a gratification that depends on the amout of the benefit of his invention. This gratification could be financed by aquisition taxes for example. The most difficult part in this system is to figure out how to calculate the benefit of an invention. So the alternative system would maybe be more bureaucratic, but it should speed up invention of new ideas, because they can be based on very recent patents.

And the market could make use of new patents instantly and would be freed of useless patent monopolys.

[Radamisto]

I find intelectual property rights incompatible with natural law as they undermine the real propery rights. As simple as that.

I would like to reccomendo to everyone an excellent essay by Stephan N. Kinsella: "AGAINST INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY"

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.