Mar 3 2011: Hello! This is a topic I've grappled with for the last 10 years as I've thought aboud (and talked about) open source software.
I think that Patents and Copyright (P & C) have a valuable and important role to play, in some domains and with some clear caveats. Both Patent and Copyright law (and subsequent case law) are crammed with flaws which have to be fixed at some point - but these flaws don't necesarily justify throwing the baby out with the bathwater.
Both P & C depend on a "bargain" in which a form of ownership is granted by the state in the belief that by doing so the generation of intellectual property will be encouraged. We have to review this "bargain" over and over again to ensure that the rights we're granting continue to fulfil the goal of producing more innovation.
In the case of Patents - I believe that there is clear evidence that innovation is - broadly - supported by patents. In domains where a significant investment is required to create the IP, but relatively low investment required to subsequently copy it, patents offer investors an important level of protection. There are other areas where the investment protection argument doesn't work. For business methods, and software (for example) I believe that patents act as a barrior to innovation and competition.
Copyright also protects the creators of IP (It also protects open source softwate, by the way, as the OSS licenses rely on copyright law). I think the duration of (C) should be limited along similar lines to patent protection (ie < 20 years) though, rather than the excessively long duration the current law applies.
Sure - there are alternative ways to create and share IP... and there's no reason at all why they can't coexist (Open Source Software, Patent Commons etc). Over time, the most effective mechanism for innovation will be determined by the market, surely?
TEDCred score: 0.00 TEDCred reflects your contribution to the TED community.
A comment on Conversation: Could we do without patents and copyrights? Would that be fair? Would there be motivation to innovate?
I think that Patents and Copyright (P & C) have a valuable and important role to play, in some domains and with some clear caveats. Both Patent and Copyright law (and subsequent case law) are crammed with flaws which have to be fixed at some point - but these flaws don't necesarily justify throwing the baby out with the bathwater.
Both P & C depend on a "bargain" in which a form of ownership is granted by the state in the belief that by doing so the generation of intellectual property will be encouraged. We have to review this "bargain" over and over again to ensure that the rights we're granting continue to fulfil the goal of producing more innovation.
In the case of Patents - I believe that there is clear evidence that innovation is - broadly - supported by patents. In domains where a significant investment is required to create the IP, but relatively low investment required to subsequently copy it, patents offer investors an important level of protection. There are other areas where the investment protection argument doesn't work. For business methods, and software (for example) I believe that patents act as a barrior to innovation and competition.
Copyright also protects the creators of IP (It also protects open source softwate, by the way, as the OSS licenses rely on copyright law). I think the duration of (C) should be limited along similar lines to patent protection (ie < 20 years) though, rather than the excessively long duration the current law applies.
Sure - there are alternative ways to create and share IP... and there's no reason at all why they can't coexist (Open Source Software, Patent Commons etc). Over time, the most effective mechanism for innovation will be determined by the market, surely?