Philosophy of copyright and libertarian arguments against intellectual property

We could only hope

 

- "Finally."

 

Why does anyone give a **** that Mickey Mouse is copyrighted? Copyright is just a tool to be a tick on society. Keep innovating your product for the better good and you will do very well. After a 100 million, money doesnt matter anymore.

 

Because the same laws that apply to the Mouse apply to everyone else?

 

Following the "Bernie Big Pharma Patents" thread I'm going to point out another reason why Intellectual Property needs to be protected and why not protecting intellectual properties will not lead to the results that many arguing the other way want.

The argument has been put forward both in this thread and the previous one that intellectual property rights are holding back the benefit of a product and idea for wider society. First if we accept that argument that undercuts the argument that ideas aren't scarce since obviously if not sharing and allowing others to use the idea is a problem for society then idea is scarce. Otherwise everyone would've thought of it and there would be no scarcity.
As repeatedly stated, good ideas are scarce.

As pointed out in the other thread a lot of initial research done behind MRNA vaccine was done by public institutions and initially wasn't done with a direct application. It's a fair to point out that this research wasn't done for a profit motive but as in the case with MRNA has proven to be very valuable. The argument goes that because a lot pure science was done without a profit motive or intellectual property concerns therefore the application based on that should also be done without a profit motive and without intellectual property so it can benefit more than just the developers of the application. The problem with that argument is that developing a product takes a lot of resources. While how MRNA works was known but to turn that into a usable and safe vaccine still took millions and many many people. Also the basic research into MRNA wasn't without cost either and took a lot of resources to explore how cells encoded data to then be used to build proteins. The idea of using MRNA to make a vaccine but also the idea that MRNA was a tool in protein building were costly. Public institutions often don't have the same resources as private corporations. They certainly don't have the same resources to manufacture, distribute and sell products on a wide scale. As such they often patent research developed in them and enter into licensing and other agreement with private corporations. Those corporations in turn pay the university directly for the use of their intellectual property, fund research and/or donate to the university endowment. In this way the institution gets more funding to continue their research.

Consider if we did away with intellectual property protections and adopted the argument that ideas aren't scarce so can't really be owned. What matters is tangible things such as the actual vaccine that is put into people's arms. A public institution doesn't have the resources to mass manufacture a vaccine and if they don't have intellectual property protections off of that idea there's nothing stopping a private corporation like Pfizer which has the resources to mass manufacture a vaccine and is under no legal compulsion to compensate the institution for the ideas that led to the creation of the vaccine. With fewer resources the institution does less research and over time less knowledge is gained and fewer new products and applications developed.

What happens then is good of society is held back because unable to own or profit from ideas means less resources to explore and research new ideas.

 

It doesn't bother me much whether you are rude to me or not. Plenty people have been rude and downright insulting to me online and not worth dwelling on.

As stated before I'm not sure what you expect to get out of this site or why you bother to post in the manner you do. This isn't a book club or a Merges, Turley, etc.. society. I don't think I just speak for myself but many of us aren't interested in reading in toto the op-ed pages of The Federalist or for that matter a book that you happen to find interesting. This site is a debate and discussion of issues. There's nothing wrong with having an opinion, changing your opinion, posting information including op-eds that support, inform or counter that opinion. The problem that I have is that while you certainly seem to have an opinion and even an ideological bias it seems like you either can't or won't articulate it except through the opinions of others. It seems like using appeal to authority to hide confirmation bias.

It's even worse when you admit that you haven't read through the piece.

I once told you that it seems like you view the site as your class and we are your students. You're posting opinions from people that you agree with as reading material and expecting us to read it and then agree with it.

That's not how this works.

On complicated and controversial issues we don't all agree and while Turley might have very interesting and learned opinions it's hard to have a discussion or a debate on a writing because Turley isn't actually the one posting on this site.

Now I'm certainly willing to read source material, time pending, if it is particularly relevant. Haymitch stated that his view was shaped by the piece he posted. I read it and commented on it, I have more to say on it too, with the understanding that Haymitch agrees with it and that is his opinion also. What I am asking you is simply, do you agree with Merges opinion and why so? You're responding that you don't even know if you agree with his opinion because you haven't even read the whole book. Again why bring it up at all and why directly in response to something that I posted?

Do you understand how that is unhelpful to understanding or advancing a discussion or a debate?

 

Relevant:

https://althouse.blogspot.com/2009/05/im-telling-you-for-last-time.html?m=1

 

Yes and skip most of them already.

This issue is important both for society and for me personally. The debate discussing intellectual property rights regarding things the MRNA vaccines show how important it is and since our economy has largely shifted from an economy of things to ideas, this is only going to get more and more important.

 

Don't have to look very hard on these. Here's one from 3 days ago.

----------------------
IBM patent income slips as companies resist godfather Deals

"Even as IBM has sued an increasing number of companies, its IP income has shrunk," reports Bloomberg: Intellectual property rights historically brought in more than $1 billion a year, on average, helping offset massive research and development costs and shrinking revenue. Last year, IBM's income from intellectual property was $626 million, its lowest point since 1996, and 2019 wasn't much higher. While it continues to secure license deals, they are fewer and harder-won, with companies like Airbnb Inc. and Chewy Inc. waging battles in court...

In February, online pet-food seller Chewy requested a court order to block a $36 million patent fee IBM is demanding. Chewy accused IBM of "seeking exorbitant licensing fees for early internet patents having no value." IBM's claims against Chewy include years-old inventions such as targeted advertising and content resizing based on cursor activity, both ubiquitous on the web. Chewy said IBM doesn't make or sell products covered by the vast majority of the thousands of patents it has received over the past 20 years, but instead just threatens to sue if companies don't agree to pay for licenses. IBM has not answered Chewy's complaint, and no trial date has been set."

article
-----------------------------
My take:

Couple of the key notes are; they suing at a company that doesn't compete with their own products and services. 2nd is these are things that are ubiquitous with Web companies. It's things that are 'not' hard to come up with, but IBM just got to it first and locked it in.

The blame; lies with the patent office with lack of digital literacy; that the stuff is not good enough to be patent in the first place. The things getting copyrighted do not satisfy the 'hard' to come up with requirements.

When people think patents, they romantically think of things like ultra hard science formulas, or super original work. But in reality; if people go through the volume of things that gets through; it's kind of laughable. The one in IBM's case: "target advertising based mouse click activities". They want 38mil from just one company.

Lastly, not all their patents come from their employees and think tanks. If they find folks in academic or whatever industry that they feel could blow up, they'll offer to buy that patent (like an investment).

This isn't a case where IBM patent it first to protect itself, should other companies sue them for using it in the future. They're doing it as a revenue stream. This stuff isn't new, and many companies sadly have gotten used to it. Reform is needed. The way for companies to combat and squabble patents is to add more lawyers.

IBM used the Godfather term is apt, because it's a mob shakedown.

 

This is an area that needs changes, especially on the litigation front which drives the un-natural and strange need of companies to amass and purchase IP for a defensive stronghold - the ability to defend product or counter-sue if you dare to litigate me.

I, however, keep this bucket separate from artwork. Utility and design patents need modernizing. Copyright not so much.

ps. wait until machine create patents themselves; wouldn't surprise me if companies invest billions into machine with the capability to spit out massive design and utility patterns that can be IP'd.

 

Current type of property rights (US).