Most people think nothing of borrowing a hammer from a neighbour. It’s an ancient tool, and the original inventor died thousands to millions of years ago, with no chance of his/her heirs collecting royalties from modern use of the pounding device. In fact, each human is probably at least partially a decedent of the person who invented hammers. This is why I find the concept of “information property” such a touchy subject. Who owns knowledge? The inventor, or humanity?
It’s widely considered just for an inventor of a popular device to be showered with riches as their reward. At what point though do we stop rewarding them for work they did in the past, and encourage them to create something new, or do something useful in the present? 2 years? 20 years? After their children milk the invention for all it’s worth?
This rather one-sided editorial by Scott Valentine at the CBC had me wondering about these questions. It’s one-sided because it takes only the perspective that creators of information property need to be protected for the economy to thrive. I agree with some protections, but if you look at them critically, you’ll see flaws that spin off of them. For instance, record companies in the States have their IP so well protected, that they are brazen enough to sue people who might be involved in piracy of their IP. Assumption of innocence is lost in the pro-IP meida, and victims of frivolous lawsuits cave into the extortion of multi-national & multi-billion dollar industries.
Our government will improve the protection of cultural and intellectual property rights in Canada.”
That kind of talk is exciting, because it hints at a plan for Canada’s under-supported innovations community.
I don’t see Valentine’s evidence for an “under-supported innovations community”. Quoting Ilse Treurnicht doesn’t serve as proof in my eyes.
“It would be a lot simpler if we could look out at a uniform set of policies,” says Ilse Treurnicht, CEO of Toronto’s MaRS Discovery District, a non-profit corporation that works to accelerate the commercialization of IP by networking innovators with venture capitalists, scientists and business people.
“Universities and government research facilities all have varying policies regarding IP,” she says. “So whenever an innovator at one of these facilities has something worth commercializing … it’s ‘let’s make a deal.’ ”
It’s bad for IP holders to haggle for the best deal they can get? Free market indeed.
@hotmail.com
![[EFC Blue Ribbon - Free Speech Online]](http://www.efc.ca/images/efcfreet.gif)
Jason | 23-Dec-07 at 12:51 pm | Permalink
I am all in favor of “FAIR” copyright and patent laws. Creators of intellectual property need to be compensated for their work, but eventually that information needs to become part of the public domain so others can build upon it. Having protection for life of the creator or even longer will slow down innovation.
Red Tory | 23-Dec-07 at 1:35 pm | Permalink
You seem to be conflating two different (albeit somewhat complimentary) ideas; that being innovation/invention and intellectual property. The first is covered by patent protection laws that give the holder of the patent protection and exclusivity under the law for a specified period of time, whereas the latter can carry on in perpetuity (at least in theory) because it is a matter of property and the strictures on proprietary use don’t automatically lapse and pass into the public domain unless the owner allows that to happen intentionally or if it occurs indadvertently (e.g., the owner going out of business).
Scott Valentine | 03-Apr-08 at 11:26 am | Permalink
In the last 16 months, I’ve interviewed people in the innovations community from public and private sector, from tech generators, transfers, incubators, VC’s, Angel investors, the legal community etc.
In this piece, I quote a the president of CIBS, the CEO of MaRS, the ED of the US-based incubator’s association, and the CEO of a university funded research and incubation centre. I sought comment from IC and CIPO, both of which ducked the opportunity.
That’s not one sided. You’re entitled to your opinion. The difference between blogging and journalism is that I have to back up what i say.
Scott Valentine
http://scottvalentine.blog.ca
Saskboy | 03-Apr-08 at 3:53 pm | Permalink
RT, I’m saying I don’t think it’s right to give the descendants of inventors the IP rights forever to something that can be made by anyone in humanity.
Scott, you’re right it’s not completely one sided — you spoke to a good range of people [who have a vested interest in the IP industry taking off]. It’s just that it’s from the perspective that we need more laws to protect innovation, and doesn’t cover the aspect of society that would prefer we provide fewer legal leg traps for innovators who use previously developed technology in their products. You told us why we would want IP protection, not also why we might not.
Scott Valentine | 04-Apr-08 at 12:59 pm | Permalink
The simple answer to that one is that without clear IP protections Canadian innovators have little incentive to commercialize their research.
Canada is a great research nation, but until we provide a clear path for taking that research to the global marketplace, the next insulin or the pacemaker or the next RIM is going to sit in moth balls, benefitting no-one.
Scott
Saskboy | 04-Apr-08 at 1:37 pm | Permalink
Interesting that you bring up RIM in a discussion about IP…
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2005/03/16/rim_ntp_settle_lawsuit/
Scott Valentine | 05-Apr-08 at 9:30 am | Permalink
Yes, but stay on track . . . suggesting that there is a valid argument against giving innovators a means to protecting their IP is akin to arguing that there is no reason to give farmers economic control of their own crops. It just isn’t logical.
Saskboy | 05-Apr-08 at 6:08 pm | Permalink
Interesting. How do you feel about Monsanto and the Percy S. case in Saskatchewan with the Roundup-Ready canola? The one where Monsanto’s ownership of a seed design is thought to trump the rights of a farmer-landowner?
It doesn’t boil down to whether or not an inventor should have protection or not; of course they need some form of protection. It’s about ensuring our laws don’t become another club that big-business can use to hit independent inventors and small operation businessmen over the head with. I don’t see a solution being presented by IP law fans that prevents bullying from NTP and Monsanto. The people government consider when writing a law about IP is not going to be Percy the farmer. It’s going to be Monsanto with the lawyers and lobbyists.
Scott Valentine | 07-Apr-08 at 3:53 pm | Permalink
So, if the solution isn’t perfect, don’t install the patch? Even if a fix in one place has measurably positive ripples in others?
Fail to give innovators the rights to their own IP, and watch the commercialization of good ideas fail.
‘Nuff said.
Saskboy | 07-Apr-08 at 4:05 pm | Permalink
The solution is the free market. Attempts to legislate who owns what ideas, just leaves eager innovators handcuffed. THEIR ideas die on the table or they have to work on work-arounds because some prior inventor won’t play ball.
And then there are things that should not even be granted patents or intellectual property rights, like GM seeds. No one interested in the survival of the world as we know it could claim terminator seeds, or ones with licenses, are a “good idea” that needs legal protection.
Scott Valentine | 10-Apr-08 at 10:01 am | Permalink
Are you familiar with the idea of copyleft?