Greetings! Welcome to the first of what I hope to be many blog posts, all of which I aim to help bring you up to speed to what is the real world. First diving in to the world with its many countries and big players, it can seem a bit scary, and it is definitely not for the faint of heart, but by taking baby steps at first, we can be ready to be active movers and game changers of our society, and hopefully give back to the international community! I believe in providing information in a manner that covers both sides of an argument (since unbiased presentation is way way difficult). Pleasantries aside, let us dive into the first topic: Intellectual Property laws.
First lesson!!! The difference between copyright and trademarks and patents:
Patents apply to the right to make, use, and sell a certain invention
Copyright applies to works of authorship (eg art, songs, publications)
Trademark applies to the name/catchphrase/slogan
Benefits: Without intellectual property protection, businesses will not have incentives to produce and invest domestically, with the fear of losing their share of the market/their goods to fierce competitors. In other words, the risk outweighs the rewards. In addition to that, the Constitution's clause on patents and copyright states that they are "to promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing... the exclusive right to their respective Writings and Discoveries." I'm not too sure on this interpretation myself (honestly? Promote progress of science by keeping their discoveries to themselves? What hooligans) but I do know that more often than not, creators are interested in what they "deserve" or "are entitled to" by their creation. Which leads us to drawbacks.
Drawbacks: It is argued that these laws have stifled creation and blossoming of innumerous private industries. It can be argued that it is a government subsidized monopoly, and is just a tool to allow businesses to put some of the risk on the governments back instead of their own. Drawbacks for copyright laws include that it reduces transparency (eg. a
copyrighted document by a corporation that has incriminating evidence can not be
used in a lawsuit against them), and that it has stifled scientific research, by keeping research papers sealed from the public eye. Also, these cases can clog up courts, and often have outrageous sums demanded as compensation, the patents themselves are unspecific and open to interpretation, and there is little to no punishment for bringing up a false claim of intellectual property.
In terms of time, patents are kept generally for around 20 years, copyrights can go up to 120 years (depending on the life of the author, and whether it was created by a corporation or not), and trademarks are timeless (as long as the paperwork is kept in order).
Touching upon international intellectual property matters briefly, there is no such thing as an international copyright or patent law. Instead, there are multiple treaties which set up standards for intellectual property rights. However, from my understanding, it only provides a bare skeleton, and different nations often have different systems installed, which often clash with one another (For example, this is a major problem in multinational corporations). The first example which comes to mind is the history of China stealing intellectual property from the United States, which may have my audience screaming bloody murder, but we can't be too quick to forget how, only a few centuries ago, the Americans also stole British inventions in order to fuel their own Industrial Revolution.
In my humble opinion, intellectual property laws have their pro's and cons; we can't live with them, and we can't live without them. They are one of the necessary institutions to create a prosperous capitalist economy, but they have created a mess which stifles innovation.
I believe that the one key problem with intellectual property laws in their current state is that their timing is much too long, which dis-incentivizes innovations. By lowering the time which companies can profit from their discoveries, new entrants into a new market can be able to improve on previous ideas and create a better product overall, as seen by the example of Facebook succeeding Myspace. But in the end, intellectual property is going to be a HOT topic in the world of tomorrow, as globalization continues to rush and pack our world together, smaller and smaller. The value of a unique idea will go up and up, as the communication and information dissemination increases throughout the world. With the global market at our feet, the stakes are higher than ever for the next big hit, whether it be the new Apple Ipod or the new Facebook.
Cheers
~Vince
*Fun Fact: The paper that inspired me to write this was actually taken down for not keeping with Republican party ideals, and the author has been laid off
*I didn't know that there was a different between copyrights, patents, and trademarks until halfway through my essay; I had to revise everything to maintain accuracy.
Sources of Interest
Unfortunately, the original document was taken down due to copyright issues! Just kidding. Click below for the link to the document!
http://archive.org/stream/RscThreeMythsAboutCopyrightLaw/rsc_policy_brief_--_three_myths_about_copyright_law_and_where_to_start_to_fix_it_--_november_16_2012#page/n0/mode/2up
Extra: The U.S. Supreme Court has recently decided to hear a case about plants recently (which is big, considering the court only hears about 75 cases a year). You must be thinking, plants, how BORING. I beg to differ.
In this case, according to current patent law, the "First Sale Doctrine of a patent law says that once a consumer buys a patented product, the consumer can do whatever they wish with it, like sell it again. The interesting thing about the current case is that it involves bio-engineered seeds; you would presume that a farmer, after purchasing said seeds, could do whatever they want correct? Wrong. Under current laws, a farmer cannot save bio-engineered seeds and replant them next season. Think about those implications! The current case is dealing with the legality of replanting after a farmer has sold his bio-engineered crop to a "grain elevator" (for now, think of them like a pawn shop for seeds) and then the grain elevator selling those seeds to a new farmer for replanting. The ruling by the lower court was that this practice was illegal.
Fascinating, and I'm excited to see what the final verdict will be.
http://westernfarmpress.com/government/supreme-court-will-review-crucial-biotech-seed-patent-case
No comments:
Post a Comment