The Guardian has it pretty wrong in today’s opinion piece on intellectual property by John Sulston (with some piling-on by the guys over at Techdirt):
The myth is that IP rights are as important as our rights in castles, cars and corn oil. IP is supposedly intended to encourage inventors and the investment needed to bring their products to the clinic and marketplace. In reality, patents often suppress invention rather than promote it…
We live in an information-driven (and increasingly experience-driven) economy. I’d argue that IP rights are even more important than rights to physical pieces of property.
Granted, our patent system has a lot of problems. In particular, the US patent office has granted overly-broad patents on software and digital technology that has impeded progress. And in many cases, patents have been granted for inventions where it’s been obvious (to just about everyone but patent examiners) that the idea previously existed in the market. Let’s fix the problems, and get a lot more restrictive on what qualifies as an invention–but let’s not throw out the whole intellectual property system!
Time is our most precious commodity. If someone takes their time to build a house, there are few who would question that they have the right to be paid for their time investment. If someone writes a song, or a computer program, or a story, or finds a cure for cancer–shouldn’t they be entitled to the same? Even most communist countries have learned that property rights, including intellectual property, are the cornerstone of any modern market economy that’s driven by entrepreneurship and investment.
on 
on 
{ 4 comments… read them below or add one }
Jon, I think you present a false analogy in comparing compensation for time-based labor (building a house) and intellectual property rights, which protect ideas, concepts, and other intangibles. In fact one could argue that there need be very little labor/time involved in producing intellectual property that could be subsequently protected by IP law in the US. For me the purpose of IP rights is to protect unique inventions and creations, which I think, in certain cases, is a good thing. As you state, our current system has major problems.
From my own point of view — multiple tech startups since the late 90s — it’s been the very rare case where I’ve felt IP law has “driven entrepreneurship and investment” — though there have been cases where it’s provided needed protection. On the other hand, I’ve watched the proliferation of open source software and free exchange of ideas drive a mind-boggling amount of innovation, entrepreneurship, and, yes, investment.
Sulston’s piece is specifically targeting IP rights with regards to the scientific community (the title of the article is “Science in shackles”), and it’s just not an area where I have much knowledge, so it’s tough for me comment specifically on his opinions. It does feel like you’re cherry-picking with your blockquote, though.
Thanks for your comments, Scott. I think Sulston’s piece draws on specific information pertaining to science (or more specifically, drug discovery and development) and extends it to make an overly broad condemnation of IP rights in general. The blockquote I used was from the start of his article, and I think it accurately reflects the theme of his critique.
You’re right that IP law doesn’t “drive” innovation, so much as it it protects the environment that allows us to innovate.
No one own’s something solely due to time (look up “sweat of the brow” arguments for IP, which have been rejected). In fact, even your example doesn’t make sense. Most of the time, the person building the house is a contractor who does not own the house. Sweat of the brow is meaningless when it comes to ownership.
The stated purpose of IP is to promote the progress of science and the useful arts. If you look at the research, you see that there is no evidence that monopolies like patents and copyright help with that sort of thing. In fact, often the opposite is shown.
This should not be surprising, because monopolies do not lead to optimal efficient outcomes. People who believe blindly that IP “protects” are like the mercantilists of the 18th century who thought merchant monopolies were needed to do business. We got rid of those and the economy thrived…
Why should we be intellectual mercantilists?
As for your final argument, that people who work on other things are paid for their time, the same can be true for intellectual work as well: you should get paid for your time, not for every time a copy is made of the output of that time.
Mike, thanks for stopping by and sharing your comments.
I think the comparison to mercantalism is a bit misleading. Mercantalism was more about trade protectionism, and offering broad monopolies over entire trade routes and markets. What we’re talking about here is the ability to control one’s own creation within a free market.
Are you suggesting that an entrepreneur, creating an intellectual work should only be “paid for their time” (which might be zero if they’re bootstrapping it) and then the fruits of their labor should thereafter be free for everyone to use? How do you believe people (inventors, entrepreneurs, investors) should be compensated for risk in that situation?