Pushback on Imaginary Property

by adulauI'm really hoping, perhaps naively, that the groundswell of opposition to ACTA worldwide, the proposed ban on software patents in NZ, and the recent court win against gene patents in the US represents a turning point in imaginary property law.

Starting in the early 1900's and proceeding until now, there has been nothing but a continued expansion of monopoly rights given to IP owners of every description. The justification has always been that these protections are essential in order to foster creativity. But the reality is that these have largely just been tools for corporations to extort disproportionate amounts of money from society at the cost of decreased innovation and restrictions on the dissemination of our culture.

Software patents have allowed Apple to patent multitouch interfaces to cell phones. If ruled as accurate, these patents would basically mean that for the next 20 years Apple would either be able to exclude all other touch-based cell phones from North America, or at least charge them heavy licensing fees to operate there. Ignoring the fact that you are basically patenting a gesture, in the world of software 20 years is essentially forever. Giving any company the ability to lock down innovation for 20 years in a market where things change every 6 months is insane. You're basically saying that only Apple can make cell phones for the foreseeable future.

And gene patents are even more detrimental. While I'm not knowledgeable of all the details, the general idea is that companies can patent individual genes once they are isolated and their purpose is somewhat known. This means corporations can monopolize the rights to the genetic material of the entire human race. Meaning anytime you want to use these genes to test for a disease like cancer or Parkinson’s, you have to pay them whatever they ask. Any time you want to research into new therapies using those genes, you have to get their permission and pay them. Not only are they claiming exclusive ownership of parts of your DNA, but they are standing in the way of, and extorting huge profits from medical progress on the key health issues of our time.

The thing is that historically, IP has been something that only huge corporations and governments were concerned with. In 1920 few people would have been concerned that a record company held the exclusive rights to copy a certain piece of music. Not only were there only a few companies that had the actual factories to reproduce records, but copyright terms were much more reasonable. In fact, non-commercial copyright was legal up until some point in the early 1900's. Bittorrent would have been legal in the 1890's.

by Steve KeysBut the public perspective on imaginary property changed once the means of production are democratized with the advent of the computer and the internet, and once companies start actively holding back innovation in publically visible areas like culture, heatlhcare, and food production for their own purposes. Once individuals start getting sued for $1.94 million for sharing 24 songs, the public starts to notice that something is amiss. And when IP owners are challenged on why it is they need the rights to sue housewives into poverty, cut off our internet access for life, and exclusively own our DNA, they respond by asking for even more draconian laws. Instead of being satisfied with their already unacceptable control over our lives and society, they have the arrogance to overreach even further. And that I think is their mistake. Had they just kept their winnings and remained silent they may have maintained their position. But they have asked for too much now and public is starting to become aware of just how morally unsound the concept of owning an idea is.

While a total banning of IP makes an interesting thought experiment, I don't think that's a reasonable expectation, or even a good idea for society as a whole. Instead I think we should more deeply consider each economic monopoly we create, rather than handing them out like Smarties.

by Ioan SameliThe terms of patents should more strongly factor-in the effect they individually have on society. An innovation in nuclear fuel handling may take 20 years to see a return on investment, but patenting swipe-to-unlock for 20 years is ridiculous. We may have moved onto thought-controlled phones in 20 years.

Copyright should apply only to commercial transactions, and should be limited to 15 years. There have been numerous studies that show that 15 years is an adequate balance between private profit and public good for cultural content. Why does an artist need to have exclusive ownership of their work 70 years after they're dead?

Trademark is useful in many cases, but it should not be used to essentially monopolize all discussion of a public event. The IOC should not be able to trademark "Vancouver" or "2010" or "winter games" or even "Olympics" and sue anyone who uses them without permission. Even Lindsey Vonn's own sponsor was not allowed to mention her gold medal win on their website because the IOC claimed her name was their imaginary property. Read that again. Her NAME was the property of the IOC and even her sponsor couldn't use it.

In many cases, it doesn't even make sense to allow any imaginary property protections at all. Fashion designs aren't protected and that's one of the most profitable and creative industries in the world. Recipes cannot be copyrighted and no one has stopped making food yet. In fact, the popularity of the Food Network should show you that chefs are doing alright without any special monopoly provisions on the production of Mac and Cheese. Mathematical formulas cannot be owned, you can't patent the discovery of an atom, and science still seems to occur with alarming frequency. I'd argue that music too should fall into the above category as I can't see a good argument why it's any different than the others I just listed.

by archernelson

I'm saying that rather than allowing corporations to just dictate the rights our governments should give them, we as a society should consider how much power over our culture and our society’s advancement we want to hand to for-profit organizations. Right now the only people at the negotiating table are IP owners, who obviously have an interest in nothing other than total control.

Imaginary property was intended to be a temporary monopoly granted by the government, on behalf of society, in order to foster innovation. It was a reward for creating something beneficial. I'm hoping (maybe dreaming?) that the public and the government are beginning to realize that it's time to reevaluate IP law based on that original principle. Instead of allowing it to continue to be used as a tool for securing the power and increased profitability of huge corporations to the detriment of everyone else in society.