The Burden of Intellectual Property Rights On Clean Energy Technologies

Lasrick writes If climate change is to be addressed effectively in the long run, nations of all descriptions must pursue mitigation and adaptation strategies. But poor countries face a potential hurdle when it comes to clean-energy technologies—most of the relevant intellectual property is held in the rich world. Many observers argue that it's unfair and unrealistic to expect massive energy transformations in the developing world unless special allowances are made. Yet intellectual property rights are intended in part to spur the very innovation on which climate mitigation depends. This article is the first post in a roundtable that debates this question: In developing countries, how great an impediment to the growth of low-carbon energy systems does the global intellectual property rights regime represent, and how could the burdens for poor countries be reduced?

Comments

I read the summary

[Mr D from 63]

I read the summary and thought "wow, this is really stupid". Then I read the article......and confirmed that thought.

A bunch of generalizations and false arguments....."Defenders of intellectual property rights argue that....". No, they don't necessarily make those arguments.

Re:I read the summary

[TheGratefulNet]

many of us write software (I also design hardware) and give a lot of it away. I got a lot for free and so I give back when I can.

linux would not exist if your view was what everyone believed.

there is a need for making a living, but there is also a need to be a citizen of humanity and to know when the almighty dollar is NOT the be-all and end-all in life.

we lost that balance. the day of the 'angel billionaire' is pretty much over and they are all greedy assholes who could care less about what happens to anyone but their own kind.

IP should no longer be respected. the laws are created by them for them. fuck that! it has ceased to benefit us all and should be ignored whenever possible. just to TRY to tip the balance back to normal again.

Re:I read the summary

[ewibble]

All these cases people do can and do:

Would you make a movie if every theater could immediately show it without paying you?

Seen Youtube, people make movies all the time, release them for free. People love to create and show other people.

Would you write a book?

Of course they would, I wouldn't but I don't like writing. If you want to get your opinion across, you would most certainly do it. In fact right now I am writing for free, what about blogs.

People would also pay for it even if they can get it for free, People can go down to the library and read books for free, but somehow they still go out and buy them too.

Would you, as movie theater owner, pay the artist that made a movie, while your neighbouring theater doesn't,

of course, within reason, as long as the viewers are informed for, one movie money goes to the creator and another doesn't. People would be willing to pay a premium for that. You obviously would too since, you think it is unfair not to pay the creator, or are your morals bound only by the law, and not what you think is right. People still buy movies when downloading it is cheaper, and more convenient.

Also, without IP, licenses like the AGPL or even the GPL wouldn't be possible

Without IP they wouldn't be necessary.

I don't necessarily agree we should have no IP at all but 1 or 2 years max on a movie, music is fine. After that if you want more money make another movie. How many movies run for more than a couple of months, in the theater, or have significant DVD sales after 2 years?

All nations got their start ignoring IP rights

[Anonymous Coward]

The early United States ignored patents issued abroad once upon a time...

Re:Typical commie solution, just steal from others

[Anonymous Coward]

If intellectual property is indeed property, I believe it is about time we tax whoever owns it like any other valuable property.

Re:Really?

[TheGratefulNet]

but if EVERYONE (every country) would ignore monsanto, for example, and shun them (it would be hard for a while, admittedly) then the war on IP/food would be won.

being bullied by the giants lets the giants continue to own you. the countries continue to allow themselves to be bullied. no one takes the risk. so everyone is 'owned', now.

The title is the problem.

[duckintheface]

The title of this post refers to "intellectual property". There is no such thing. There are patents, copyrights, and trademarks. But none of these is property. If they were we would not need a special part of the US Constitution to deal with these things (Article 1, Section 8). Because none of this is "property" it is not covered by property law.

And that's the problem. Patents, copyrights, and trademarks exist to further innovation. They represent a monopoly limited in time and held by the innovator who created the thing that is patentable, copyrightable, or tradmarkable. But when we treat those temporary monopolies as property that can be bought and sold, inherited and used as collateral, we have destroyed the impetus to innovation and replaced it with an impetus to profit even at the peril of innovation.

And so we have the ridiculous spectacle of a copyright extended and extended ... even beyond the lifetime of the innovator. How does a copyright encourage creativity in a dead person? The solution to all of this is simply to return to the original short terms of these monopolies and not to allow property law, buying and selling of rights, to insert it's corrupting hand into the crucible of creativity.

Start using the term Intellectual Monopoly

[trout007]

Because that is what it really is. Intellectual Monopoly is not compatible with property rights. You either own your property and are free to transform it and sell it or you don't own it. Someone saying I can't configure my property is only possible with a government granted monopoly and has no basis in property rights.