Intellectual Property

-- Property -- Con begins, "Pro argues that my claim... is wrong, but conveniently fails to respond to my argument that some of those 'benefits' really are monetary profits." The thing is - I don't have to. In fact, I specifically *agreed* with this notion in the last round. I'll repeat, "What Con advocates is essentially likened to plagiarism: benefiting (in the form of profit) by reproducing another's ideas." I specifically pointed out that benefits can be and often ARE monetary profits, so what exactly is Con's point? I have no incentive to argue this notion and have even explained why it works in my favor. I could just as easily point out that Con has failed to respond to the quandary regarding this very issue: plagiarism. Moreover likening the alleged value of one's kept lawn to the behemoth worth of say finding the cure for cancer is an unreasonable analogy. Next Con writes, "Pro also argues that my claim... is only my opinion -- but so is her claim... The difference is that my claim makes sense..." A bare assertion indeed. However, I explained that while sharing IP may not involve loss of personal use, the loss of income incident to such sharing is true and significant. Con responded by saying this was analogous to a store owner with a monopoly on stores. Once again, I contend that this is a manipulative analogy. As I explained, this debate is essentially a philosophical debate about what should constitute as property. I could just as easily turn Con's logic against him regarding physical property. By claiming the land where one chooses to build his store is his "property," he's simply relaying a metaphorical idea - specifically one that exists to allow him to utilize his "property" as he sees fit, and possibly to generate profit. The same concept applies with IP. Yes land exists as a physical entity, but so often so do the fruits of one's labor. Nevertheless the concept of land being "property" is completely abstract and has meaning only because we say it does. We say it's reasonable for someone to be able to own (determine use) of it, and/or be compensated for work on it accordingly. Similarly, Con cannot suggest the absurdity of claiming the validity of IP, because the same logic used to justify it is the same logic applied to material property. Think of it this way -- Con says if he farms certain land, it becomes his property. Why then can I not farm the same land and have it also be my property? It's completely contradictory for him to say this abstract idea of property can only apply to that which is tangible because it is useful. Ideas are exceptionally useful. As Ayn Rand explained, copyrights can be seen as a debt to the inventor by those that profit from copying it. Con concerns himself with the labor of the copier, but the copier is compensated for their labor with IP existing as well. They are simply offering some earnings to the one partly responsible for their profit, just as some of a worker's earnings go to the company they work for. To insist on ignoring property and rewarding only labor is to be a communist. Additionally, keep in mind that debts cannot be perpetual, and similarly, the terms of IP are and can be further limited - for instance to one's lifespan. In this way IP is *better* than real property. While that can be passed on to undeserving heirs, IP seeks not to create feudalistic generations of perpetuated wealth but rather justly compensate the most useful and thus deserving agent. Such is a prime tenant of the capitalist philosophy. Con continues, "I obviously don't mean the price of the original paper that idea is written on... I said is the creator has the right to whatever someone will pay for the right to use the idea first." Actually, Con specifically said in Round 3, "The original copy of the idea, whether it is on paper or in the programmer's head, is what the programmer owns." This validates my contention: that if someone compensates an inventor for the price of paper whatever information was written on, that Con would consider it a fair trade. He also notes that the original copy of the idea - even in someone's head - has the right to be owned. This is the concept behind IP, so it seems my opponent has conceded :) Con concludes by saying I have not justified monopoly rights on ideas. That is ludicrous considering this is what the entire debate has been about. -- Economy -- A) Moot point - we're in agreement. B) Con writes, "Because the effects [of incentives for inventors] go both ways, we must look at empirical evidence to see whether or not IP increases innovation." The empirical evidence I presented defends my point. Additionally studies show the merit of IP may not only be regarding raising the number of innovations, but changing the direction of innovative activity [1]. C) Con writes, "Current pharmaceutical companies exist in a world with patents, so obviously they use them." My point was that they have thrived specifically from using them -- a contention Con never refuted but merely denied contrary to all evidence. Con also insists pharm industries were fine without patent protection in the past, but I've proven they've boomed since and explained the direct correlation to IP. D) Con suggests that it's because of patents that R&D costs for pharm companies are so high. On the contrary, "This rapid rise in R&D costs has been driven largely by steep increases in the costs of clinical testing, which have grown 5x as fast as preclinical testing costs" [2]. Moreover he says it's completely wasteful for companies to compete by improving drugs. I guess what some call wasteful others call innovative. E) Con says, "If patents were abolished, pharmaceutical companies wouldn't be less likely to sell their product in Brazil than they are to sell it anywhere else." If patents were abolished, perhaps the necessary investment into said drugs would never have existed. F) Con concedes that patents increase pharm innovation, but says some ask for excessive royalties inhibiting certain R&D. First, the pharm royalty rate for pre-clinical testing is only 2% [3]. Second, the high payoff also attracts many companies to compete, increasing the pace of drug development thereby negating this assessment. He also says it *must* be true that patents lead to dramatic price increases, despite my sources (specifically #10) and explanation in the last round stating otherwise. However he's given no actual rebuttal - just a false statement in response. G) People want to invest where they're protected. Makes sense. -- Conclusion -- My esteemed opponent has failed to give reason we ought to recognize property and not IP. The scarcity argument was not justified. He'd said that air is not property because we can breathe as much as we want without interfering with anyone else's ability to use the air, and similarly, IP should not be property for the same reason. This is another inapplicable analogy. Air is not property because it isn't scarce, but because nobody owns it, nobody's produced it with the fruits of their own labor, it was not granted from one rightful owner to another, and nobody can realistically protect that asset (though you can with both property and IP). So again I repeat -- the same logic applicable to property rights is also applicable to IP, and my opponent hasn't proven otherwise. If you think someone who has done virtually no work in comparison, but is significantly inhibits your gains on something you've put massive amounts of investment into without your consent is wrong - and that you should have at least temporary ownership of your original idea for at least a short amount of time (maximum being the span of your life) - then you support IP and should vote PRO. Furthermore I've explained and proven the merits and responsibility of IP within a functioning capitalist economy. SOURCES: http://tinyurl.com...