Intellectual Property (IP)

[EconomicsIsGod]

Earlier tonight a debate regarding IP came up between myself and two friends. Specifically, we were discussing whether or not it should exist at all; if an idea is an actual thing that can be owned by one person. Many good points were made on each side and needless to say, nobody convinced anyone else to change their mind. Now I know we have a lot of intelligent people on this board and many who actually deal in this with their line of work (any manufacturer who invents a new product or wants to make one similar to someone else's) so the question I have for all of you is simply put, can you own an idea?

My personal take on the issue is that no, you cannot. An idea is not a scarce good. By me knowing the same thing you do, even if you thought it up first, I take away nothing at all from you. Similarly, by using that idea for productive means, I still take nothing from the originator of the idea.

Going the other way though, if one can claim ownership over an idea and prevent me, by force of law, from using that idea for my own gain, they are claiming possession over a portion of my actual, scarce, property. For example, if I figure out how to manufacture a Glock, and I have all the parts and tools required to do so and I decide I'm going to start cranking them out and selling them at a cheaper price, under the current laws, Glock could step in and stop me from doing so. What gives them or anyone else the right to tell me what I can and cannot make out of my own property though? And why is it that they can say who I can sell my property to after I transform it in any way I desire? It seems to be completely contradictory to property rights. IP laws claim a non existent scarcity over an idea and give its ownership to someone just because they create it while simultaneously taking away my right to do whatever I damn well please with the property I own.

Additionally, it seems to me that IP laws are detrimental to innovation and progress as well. If I was able to do what I described above with the manufacturing of Glocks, it would force Glock to innovate in order to compete. Seeing as Glock is the creative force to begin with, the innovator, then they will likely be able to innovate once again to stay on top of the market. If not, if they were simply a one hit wonder with a single good idea before their intellectual capacity ran dry, then they would at least need to start producing at a lower cost or they would go out of business.

This is simply my opinion on the matter and its one that is somewhat difficult to figure out. I would love to hear what the rest of you think on the issue and welcome any debate regarding this topic. Its one that I am currently trying to gain a firm grasp on and seeing what other people think about it is always helpful in forming that understanding and belief.

[jp11]

1. It's way late for me but

one major flaw of your example is those who would take the idea and run with it are those of means, meaning rich and big business as they have the means to make just about anything cheaper than you could. IP laws are one of the few things 'protecting' an innovator/inventor from having to fight them off from just copying their work and duplicating it, even with them it can be done with modifications or a legal run around.

Even if the result was to keep innovating nothing is there to stop someone else from picking up the new innovation copying it and producing it cheaper/faster than the 'originator' could which can/could put them out of business. It becomes a cycle of make something new put it to market after investment then have it 'stolen' out from under you, if you don't have the funds to do it on your own you go under, if you have the funds to absorb the loss when it get stolen out from under you then you live to fight another day and repeat the process.

[TheWraith]

2. On the contrary, GOOD ideas ARE scarce.

To take your example, Gaston Glock designed a very reliable pistol. Someone else could have done it, but he did. Eugene Stoner designed a quality rifle. Again, someone else COULD have made the design, but didn't. They did it better than had been done previously. To not allow the person who actually has the idea and creates the design to reap some level of protection for it would discourage innovation, because in a completely unrestricted free market there would be nothing to restrain companies from simply waiting until someone else advanced the state of the art and then cloning it without having invested the effort themselves.

Now, it's certainly true that intellectual property laws give control over IP for far too long. It was never originally intended to convey a lifetime control of an idea, a work, or anything like that. We should return to the original 7 plus 7 for patents, and 20 years for copyright.

[BzaDem]

4. +1

[McCamy Taylor]

3. China has made IP laws obsolete. Or maybe I should say useless.

[BzaDem]

5. "What gives them or anyone else the right to tell me what I can and cannot make"

The government does (it's in the Constitution). They also have the right to take your property directly (see 16th amendment). Lots of things are allowed that violate a libertarian's view of property rights.

You want to end all incentive to innovate? Then get rid of IP. As another poster mentioned, bad ideas are not scarce. But good ideas are scarce. No one would spend 10 years and millions or billions of dollars trying to invent something if once it's invented, someone could copy it tomorrow. Life saving drugs wouldn't be created, advances in computer technology would not happen, etc etc etc. You think of ideas as relatively simple, but the ones for which IP really matters are generally not simple. They take years of investment and unbelievable sums of money to produce, and if you got rid of the incentive to produce them, they simply wouldn't be produced.

Does this mean we have the balance right? Not necessarily. IP laws can certainly be too stifling. The idea is to draw the line such that as much copying of good ideas is prevented as possible, while as much "obvious" stuff is left in the public domain. In addition, depending on the advance of technology, time time limits for certain types of patents might be too long.

But to get rid of IP would really kill innovation that we take for granted. Now, I'm sure there are some people here who think that is a good thing, that we need go back to living in the woods, etc. But assuming you don't hold such views, IP laws in general are very important.