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.
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.
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.
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.
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!