Zyobot
Fleet admiral
Just a time-traveling robot stranded on Earth.
Posts: 17,352 
Likes: 7,260
|
Post by Zyobot on Nov 24, 2018 15:09:16 GMT
Though most may not think about it at every waking moment, intellectual property—and the various laws that it entails—is all around them. The criminalization of downloading certain online media, granting businesses temporary monopolies on this or that technology, and giving reason to be extra careful whenever they exercise “fair use” are just some of the implications of such legislation.
At the same time, intellectual property laws are said to foster innovation and originality by forcing creators to come up with something of their own and incentivizing them to do so, not to mention allowing them to economically benefit from the fruits of their labor. But as far as I know, this is a rather..inexact science.
So what if the concept of intellectual property never gained enough traction and thus, never became law in the first place?
Thank you in advance,
Zyobot
|
|
lordroel
Administrator
Posts: 68,033
Likes: 49,433
|
Post by lordroel on Nov 24, 2018 15:25:52 GMT
Though most may not think about it at every waking moment, intellectual property—and the various laws that it entails—is all around them. The criminalization of downloading certain online media, granting businesses temporary monopolies on this or that technology, and giving reason to be extra careful whenever they exercise “fair use” are just some of the implications of such legislation. At the same time, intellectual property laws are said to foster innovation and originality by forcing creators to come up with something of their own and incentivizing them to do so, not to mention allowing them to economically benefit from the fruits of their labor. But as far as I know, this is a rather..inexact science. So what if the concept of intellectual property never gained enough traction and thus, never became law in the first place? Thank you in advance, Zyobot I think a lot of companies would copy each other a lot as they do not need to pay the other. |
|
Zyobot
Fleet admiral
Just a time-traveling robot stranded on Earth.
Posts: 17,352
Likes: 7,260
|
Post by Zyobot on Nov 24, 2018 18:59:14 GMT
Though most may not think about it at every waking moment, intellectual property—and the various laws that it entails—is all around them. The criminalization of downloading certain online media, granting businesses temporary monopolies on this or that technology, and giving reason to be extra careful whenever they exercise “fair use” are just some of the implications of such legislation. At the same time, intellectual property laws are said to foster innovation and originality by forcing creators to come up with something of their own and incentivizing them to do so, not to mention allowing them to economically benefit from the fruits of their labor. But as far as I know, this is a rather..inexact science. So what if the concept of intellectual property never gained enough traction and thus, never became law in the first place? Thank you in advance, Zyobot I think a lot of companies would copy each other a lot as they do not need to pay the other. That sounds fair, though I bet that the lack of temporary monopoly would make a (more) perfect market for this or that product or service. Whether there'd still be enough incentive to innovate in general remains uncertain to me. On the one hand, it makes intuitive sense that there'd be less original developments. But at the same time, free and open access to some otherwise-protected thing could lead to explosive, transformative innovation as well (i.e. Tim Berners-Lee not patenting the WWW). That's an example of why--though I don't know much about it (yet)--I get the impression that intellectual property is an inexact science when it comes to fostering creativity. |
|
raunchel
Commander
Posts: 1,795 
Likes: 1,182
|
Post by raunchel on Nov 24, 2018 19:05:46 GMT
We would probably see less investment in R&D because competitors would quickly copy any advances. Corporate secrets (and espionage) would also be much more common and companies would have to invest quite a bit in security of their manufacturing. There would still be some development however, after all, you can keep the how a secret and there would be demand, although individual brands would matter more.
Overall, technology would develop much more slowly. Not only because development isn't worth it, but also because many technologies would be kept a secret for as long as possible. This also leads to monopolies forming much more easily.
On fields like pharmaceuticals, there would only really be publicly funded research. No company is going to waste massive sums developing a drug of which the whole development cost has to be made back very quickly.
|
|
Zyobot
Fleet admiral
Just a time-traveling robot stranded on Earth.
Posts: 17,352
Likes: 7,260
|
Post by Zyobot on Feb 15, 2019 0:25:39 GMT
No one's touched this thread in a while. I should start it back up. The Foundation for Economic Education (or FEE)--which is admittedly a libertarian and therefore politically partisan think tank that's best taken with at least a few grains of salt--has published a few articles in opposition to IP laws. This 2016 one is the most recent I could find.To add some of my own ideas, I think that even though we might see endless copying of the same goods/services at first, creators would eventually go back to being original in order to distinguish themselves from their competitors; Company A being mistaken for Company B wouldn't necessarily be beneficial. Furthermore, companies that do business with one another might include mutual respect for the other(s)'s creations in any agreements they work out (i.e. legally-binding contracts). I also speculate that there'd be far less industry monopolization since that's what IP effectively is by definition, though mergers could become a more common way to expand in size and power. Whatever happens, a perfect market for this or that product is pretty much guaranteed to exist. But that's just my opinion, and I bet that it's only a matter of time before a forum member who's well-versed in the legal field addresses my points and crushes my hopes about innovation still happening. Grrr. |
|
