in defense of IP as property rights model

Tom Giovanetti has an interesting commentary in The Washington Times on the value of the property rights model of intellectual property.

Tom’s premise is that technological advances have been helped, not hindered, by the property rights model of intellectual property.

By any material measure, this is the greatest of times to be alive. Technological innovation has resulted in higher productivity and living standards across the planet. Even many infected with the AIDs virus, albeit still awaiting a cure, are living full and productive lives. 

This didn’t just happen by accident. Make no mistake: Our lives have been made healthier, more pleasant and more productive because of the property-rights model of innovation, where those who invest their time, money, creativity and effort in developing new products and services get to direct their own efforts, own the results and profit from their inventions.

The detractors from this model are labelled the “free culture movement”:

But some attack this successful property-rights model of innovation. They reflect a few, vocal group activists who insist there is something terribly wrong with the way research and innovation is done. And they want it changed.

These activists, perhaps best broadly described as the free culture movement, cloak a radical agenda beneath their innocuous idea that “information wants to be free.” They demand that nations (and even individual U.S. states) pass legislation requiring purchase of open-source software. They are uncomfortable with corporations directing investment in research and development and owning their innovations.

The activists thus want to radically change how pharmaceutical innovation is accomplished. They propose that governments should nationalize intellectual property, levy new taxes to fund R&D, and then incentivize R&D through prizes administered by new government-sponsored enterprises or, even better, international nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) staffed by technocrats unaccountable to voters.

Tom’s conclusion: they are wrong and the assertions levied against the property model of IP are obviously false.

It is precisely ownership of intellectual property that makes it widely available. The much-vaunted public domain is better viewed as a vast wasteland of works unknown and practically unavailable, because no one has an incentive to make them available.

Exactly. 

You may be interested in reading the following related posts:

1. LATIN AMERICAN R&D WOES: STRONGER IP ONE POSSIBLE SOLUTION?
2. Scrabble v. Scrabulous
3. economy tied to innovation
4. Patent Rights Do Not Hinder Research
5. Legal Imperatives on Intellectual Property Management

Posted by Douglas Sorocco, October 14, 2004 at 12:40 pm
Permalink: in defense of IP as property rights model
3 Comments

Comments

On October 17th, 2004 at 5:28pm Anita Campbell said…

How true! Capitalism — and the corresponding concept of property rights that travels along with it — makes the world go around. Even the lower prices of pharmaceuticals that are found in some Socialistic countries are made possible only because the costs of developing and testing the drugs are in turn recouped in the USA and other free market places.

On October 19th, 2004 at 5:01pm Patent Guy said…

I was interested in reading this article until I noticed it was from the Washington Times. Where are the facts in the article? Who are the activist “straw men” who want to radically change the concept of intellectual property in this country? You guys have a great blog. In the future, please continue to search for real articles on the state of IP. But please refrain from linking to articles that lack substance and are written in a newspaper that’s owned by a messianic religious freak.

On October 25th, 2004 at 10:00pm IP girl said…

While I agree with the previous commentary to a point, I bristled at the dogmatic tone of Ms. Campbell’s post.From a public policy standpoint, some innovation is too important to be kept as property. Often patents are used by non-innovative companies with large legal departments to extract licensing fees from competition who are probably just better at what they do.Pharmaceuticals cost more in the USA because the market dictates the price. Don’t tell me that the money used for R&D is all private. Pharmaceutical companies use public funds – through universities or other programs – in much of their development. To turn around and claim a monopoly on a potentially life-saving development is capitalism at its absolute worst. Thank goodness there are alternatives to the US system.