The debate "Intellectual property rights limit innovation and monopolize key knowledge that could benefit us all" was started by
May 25, 2015, 12:51 pm.
13 people are on the agree side of this discussion, while 8 people are on the disagree side.
People are starting to choose their side.
It looks like most of the people in this community are on the agreeing side of this statement.
Mukund_98 posted 2 arguments, I_Voyager posted 1 argument to the agreers part.
PsychDave posted 5 arguments, Sosocratese posted 1 argument, Damn3d posted 1 argument to the disagreers part.
Mukund_98, I_Voyager, soullesschicken, fabian3546, WordSpeller, jedty, DarkAngelAnarchist and 6 visitors agree.
PsychDave, tr, Sosocratese, toughgamerjerry, Damn3d, Chabii, sdiop and 1 visitor disagree.
I may be getting tangential on this response given that I'm not going to say intellectual property rights always stifle development, but instead that intellectual property rights encourage the wrong kind of invention by insentivising the wrong human natures.
Consider Tesla. Tesla has actually open sourced all their schematics. I CAN go modify and/or build my own objects based on the Tesla IP, be it for their cars or their power wall. They've done this for the same reason why so many other people do it - the more access, the more chance of interaction, the more chance of positive mutation.
Consider linux vs Windows. Windows is a better operating system. But the economics and IP rights behind Windows are monumentally more. Linux is not monumentally inferior. It commands 1% of the economy, but even if it has 40% of the functionality of Windows - and thanks to the WINE emulator it must be more than that - then it cannot be said that Microsoft's IP and high-money method necessarily produces better software. Consider Firefox against Internet Explorer. Consider that the Rasperri Pi is 1/4 the quality of an intel processor without having had 1/4 of the market control.
There are plenty of people out there who want to be innovative and inventive without being stifled by the politics of economics. But companies like Apple end up spending more on their IP rights than on their actual technology. Same with marketing. That which is greatly financially successful is not necessarily that which is the most inventive or innovative. Those who require big-money and control to be insentivised may not necessarily be those we want to enshrine in order to maximize innovation. And since the whole world is swept up in an economic/political whirlwind, there's no metric for which to compare this system against an open source anarchy. All that can be made are biased and/or philosophical claims to support the idea that the current economic method of IP is what maximizes invention.
No, I would argue that it actually furthers it. Like Sosocratese said, what if any Chinese ripoff would be allowed to call itself the IPhone? Would we have the iPhone 6 today? Probably not, because Apple would have no incentive to do so.
If a company like Tesla, for example, sprouts up, it cannot at first compete with the Giants in the industry such as BMW. If there were no copyrights, BMW would take that model and make it themselves, putting Tesla out of business. Now, noone has any incentive to invent because they know their idea will be stolen. The big companies don't care to invent either, because they can just steal from those who do.
Copyright laws protect. It allows the maker to continue to pioneer the product without concern of theft. That's why the exist.
IPR ensures that losses taken on by a company in R&D of a new product can be recovered. It allows companies to spend time developing a product and know that they'll have the exclusive naming rights and branding of that product.
Take the iPhone for example. It would have been really hard for Apple to recover it's original investment if every Chinese knockoff was allowed to to call itself an iPhone or ipad etc...
The Global Intellectual Property Center is a good place to get arguments and talking points.
Can you give me a point from a more development kind on perspective?
Like how does IPR help in development?
If intellectual property was not protected, I could slap together a drink in my basement and sell it as Pepsi. Protecting intellectual property means when you buy something, you know what you are getting and who made it.
To be clear, I don't actually agree with the way intellectual property is done now, but that stance wouldn't help you for your debate tomorrow.
With intellectual property being protected, the first to develop an idea or design has an advantage, forcing businesses to innovate or fail.
Apple came back from near failure to be a dominant player because they were able to innovate and knew that the costs and risks of doing so would pay off since their innovations would remain theirs.
Without legal protection, companies have no incentives to invest in development. Whoever pays for developing new technology has the R&D costs, but everyone could copy their designs, coming out ahead. Without intellectual property being protected, there is nothing driving innovation, thus crippling it.
Guys I really need help with this topic. I have a debate competition tomorrow and I'm in the side of opposition. So if you all could give some points against the topic, that'd be awesome. Thanks :)