Slashdot Mirror
The Case Against Intellectual Property
dhilvert writes "David Levine and Michele Boldrin argue that current IP laws encourage an inefficient rent model and stifle the potential for innovation without intellectual monopoly. Levine teaches at UCLA and maintains an Economic and Game Theory page."
A question one must ask one's self is when does a research result or algorithim or something stop being a matematical or scientific process, that should be shared with everyone and when does it become intelectual property?
I mean, the 'breast cancer gene' has been patented, the harvard mouse too; not to mention all of the computer algorithims that are patented. Whatever happened to the notion that mathematics and science should be shared with everyone? The scientific community has functioned on the 'open source' model for hundreds of years, but it seems that thanks to the concept of 'intelectual property' this is all changeing.
Really, I mean some of these patent claims are analogous to Newton/Leibnits attempting to patent calculus or Feynmann trying to patent his discoveries in quantum electrodynamics.The point is when does intelectual property become a rediculous concept, or is it a rediculous concept from the very begining?
"Entropy is the bad-guy, and he is everywhere"
What is it IP laws go far to protect? a forcing of people into one model?
Where to protect your rights and inventions you must sue people and protect them under a situation of IP laws that are too old now
Whatever happened to the idea of 'a good name'. A company could live off of its good name and good will by being well known and respected because of it their actions. If they truly have good IP then they will be respected for inventing it and earn more in other areas
that to me and mindshare is worth more than copywriting their invebntions and just making forceful noises about people paying them for it.
note:the slashdot user 'danamania' is a transexual. beware of him
Everyone seems to be saying the same thing, but no major party seems to notice. You could just say they're in bed with business, or you could say that people aren't vocal enough about this issue.
Hmm wouldn't there be lots of prior art on the cancer gene already over the last few thousand years how can you patent a natuarly occuring gene.
I had a pet once
The current system of monoplies is way too powerful for my taste.
-WolfWithoutAClause
"Gravity is only a theory, not a fact!"Read this:
PBS, Who invented Radio?Its about how Tesla filed for patent on the radio in 1897, Marconi applied for his patent in 1900.
Marconi's patents were thrown out at first. Marconi became rich and powerful, then Tesla's patents were thrown out in place of Marconi's.
So you end up with a market in which the patent owner isn't the inventor and the whole purpose of patents - to reward the inventor, is turned on its head.
You can see the same pattern happening in software patents and the constant requests on Slashdot for prior art.
Each country would reward advances in science and technology. The catch? No idea hogging (no patents). Just simple and honest work to improve our world.
Of course, law suits would spring up as to who should receive the credit and the money, therefore, the only conclusion is to remove patenting. Lawyers would suffer (which is why they should be identified as the corrupt link).
One thing is for certain, patents have nothing to do in the computer world. The younger generation knows this, and it is waiting for the current generation to wither and die.
Why do "we" have to wait until the year 2525 to grasp this?
The solution I'd like to see, instead, would be the government taking a proactive stand. Instead of granting patents and waiting for the mess to sort itself out, I want the government to go out and bust patents. Presidents like to portray themselves as trustbusters; well, "patent cartels" are one large trust that's never been busted. If some technology covered by a patent becomes truly umbiquitous - that is, so widely used that the inventor has ALREADY recouped his R&D investment - I'd like to see the government force the patent into the public domain. Example: CD-ROMs... Philips hold the patent, and has been very generous with it. But the technology protected by that patent is SO widespread that any abuse of the CD-ROM patent would ruin the technology sector. Think of how much some companies (or the RIAA, to supress non-DRM formats) would pay to control that patent - the value is inconceivable.
At this point, CD-ROM technology ceases to be a useful patent and starts to become something that the general public has a vital interest in... and here's the point where the government should "seize" the patent and turn the IP over to the public BEFORE the patent expires of its own accord. A widely used piece of IP (or any of the "obvious" patents we regularly complain about here on Slashdot) has passed the point where the inventors NEED a monopoly to protect their idea and has reached the point where the only purpose of that patent is profit at the expense of the public.
Monopolies are useful, but powerful monopolies are not; patents are useful, but exploitable patents are not. The government has an active role in regulating all other monopolies; it needs to take an active role in regulating IP monopolies as well.
A witty [sig] proves nothing. --Voltaire
Instead copyright lasting life of author plus 70 years (or whatever it is); make it 5 years. Instead of patents lasting 20 years; make them 3 years.
Before I disagree with the abolition of software patents, there are a couple of things worth pointing out.
......... in the USA!
IIRC Edison did a lot of research including about 1000 attempts to get the light bulb to work properly. He then found that most of the work was prior art except for one patentable item. He then found that this had been patented about four years earlier.
I'm all for software patents
When IBM introduced the PC it was described as "the trailing edge of technology." Most innovation in this area since has avoided the patent route.
The two examples above suggest there is a fundamental problem with the granting of patents as a public good. Given that the European Community has distanced itself from software patents, the big question is this: Will software innovation in the EC now exceed that of the USA?
I Am Not An Economist, so the second chapter was challenging for me, I must confess. However, I think I get the gist of the paper's argument. And, if I do, I admit I am (pleasantly) shocked by its "innovative" argument, which opened my eyes somewhat. Of particular interest to the slashdot audience, I believe, is probably the section titled, "The First-Mover Advantage" on pages 24-28 of the second chapter. These first-mover advantages, which the current patent law intends to secure through the granting of temporary monopoly to innovators, all apply in the absence of the IP law.
In other words, absent the present incentive model of temporary monopoly to an innovation, innovators will continue to innovate, given that they can recoup the "sunken cost" of initial research. Am I convinced that the above conditions exist for innovators as "first-movers"? Yes. And, as the paper points out, there might be other ingenious ways to take advantage of new ideas in the absence of the IP law.
However, I do see the abolition of the current IP law having a radical impact on the way the society functions. First off, product-placement in "copyright" works will increase dramatically, until indeed another innovative method of extracting the initial investment cost is found. Imagine each and every single song you hear on the radio having some kind of reference to Pepsi or Marlboro. What a trade-off! Secondly, related to the first point, the advertising industry will come to exert an even greater control over musicians, software programmers, writers than they do now. In other words, if you want to make money off your work, you better do what the advertisers say. Ugh, Gator comes to mind here...
I was going to go on about the fantasy list of impacts the abolition of the IP law would have on our world, but I just remembered a question that I had and the paper didn't answer. So I will just finish this post by posing that question and, hopefully, engage some of you in a debate of sort about it as well. My question is this: in the entertainment industry (publishing, music, film, etc.) wouldn't the initial impulse to control the distribution/reproduction channel be too great to ignore? This is happening to some extent already (AOL Time, invasive P2P software) and, were the proposal of the paper to be adopted, we may see the privatization/regulation of the Internet along the line of what China is doing or the cable TV industry. This, to me, would be equally bad as (if not even worse than) the ridiculuous extension of copyright to Disney.
Man, I haven't been this excited about the IP law in a while. I didn't really think of a way to get around the economic incentive argument for the IP law before tonight...
The web is a dominatrix. Everywhere I turn, I see little buttons ordering me to Submit.
yeah, but that's assuming that the only reason authors create works is for the $$$. it aint so. if the author was a true artist then he/she'd publish purely for the sake of art. if the novel was held to be a work of art, poeple would go out of their way to buy it within ONE year.
copyright's reason for existence is to encourage creativity. if copyright was lost, do you really think no-one would be creative? of course not. look at all the work licensed under the GPL. do the authors of those works do it for the $$$? no. and if you think software is different to novels; it isn't in the eyes of copyright.
in a world without copyright, we might lose mega-music-marketing-multinationals and proprietary software companies but people will still publish stuff (and do, eg on the web) simply for art's sake. who cares if the record labels disappear, we can get our music from the web now (legitimately i mean). artists won't disappear. creativity will not diminish as much as the making of a buck on creativity.
anyway, the question is where to strike the balance. the balance has swung too far against the public interest in favour of the RIAA/MPAA.
why have laws that reward the RIAA/MPAA???
I'm going to propose something revolutionary, ok? And you'll have to be very patient and honest when I say this.
What is happening in law and IP today is structurally and materially no different from what happened in the technology industry after about 1994. It's an orgy on a new profit source. It's a bubble. There will be a lot of mid-level or worse IP lawyers who get very, very wealthy for a few years, and then the bubble will burst.
Lawyers are almost always 5-10 years behind major trends, and this is no exception.
C'mon, are you going to attack the lawyers for getting rich off of software patents but excuse the VC who gave money to (and profited from) etaxidermy.com or some such stupid thing? The lawyer's no better than the money-hungry bubble riders of the last decade, but he's no worse either.
Perhaps some lawyers are in a better position to manipulate the system than the average technology worker, but that's not a conclusive argument. There are plenty of technology leaders who can manipulate their systems and force us consumers to buy overpriced merchandise with questionable technical merit (cell phones, until recently, fell into this category; POTS companies as well).
Do I think IP is over-litigated? Yes. Do I think there are thousands of useless patents that stifle innovation? Hell yes. Do I think it will last forever? Nope.
But you need to remember something. The USPTO is incredibly picky and self-protective. To sit for the patent bar, you have to have an undergraduate degree in physics, chemistry, biology, etc. I do not believe CS is eligible. So, the USPTO is filled with people who know a lot about physics and chemistry, but next to nothing about software and computers. And they're issuing the patents.
If you want to lash out at anybody, lash out at the stodgy and overly-permissive USPTO rather than the lawyers who are getting rich off of their ignorance. (Ok, lash out at the lawyers too, but recognize that they're just hitting an opportunity, not - entirely - making it.)
Many of our founders felt that lawyers shouldn't be allowed to serve in Congress or as the President because it'd be a conflict of interest. Afterall, if a lawyer can vote on the law, they can essentially vote themselves into a lucrative occupation at everyone else's expense.
Click here or a puppy gets stomped!
If the trend had kept going we'd be at over 100 million now, but (as all of us on /. know) the Patent Office can't keep up with the applications. Also, patents went out of fashion in mid-century (possibly due to public distrust of monopolies, as well as the depression) and didn't come back in until the US started to deal with real international competition in the 70s.
-- Some things are to be believed, though not susceptible to rational proof.