intellectual property rights

On Burden of ProofThe burden of proof, by the very nature of the matter at hand, rests solely on the opponent. We have an infinite number of freedoms; we have freedoms to pick our noses, to walk, to debate on Debate.org. If those who wish to enact laws to restrict freedoms have no burden of proof, then all of the freedoms we possess, by default, should be illegal until defended to be otherwise. This is, of course, not practical at all and is not the way that the law works. Moreover, in a situation in which proponents of restrictive laws have equal burden of proof to those who are not proponents, it would be, by default, just as fair to restrict each (and all) of our freedoms as it would be to allow them; this is not how the law works, and if you name any freedom that has not been concretely and specifically named by the law (e.g., one's right to eat tree bark), you will see that it is, by default, always allowed. This is because the law works in a way that allows all freedoms until they are proven unallowable, in the same way that the accused is considered innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. For the same reason that arguers for God's existence always carry full burden of proof, proponents of the legal restriction of natural freedom always carry full burden of proof. This is not a matter of "terms of debate," but rather a matter of the question being contended in the debate. Ethical/Natural Rights ArgumentI maintain that the distinction between scientific truths and ideas worthy of patent is very arbitrary. And this arbitrariness is a serious issue with the notion of patent law, a branch of intellectual property law, because it means that some people have a right to receive benefits for the use of their ideas, while others do not. I gave the example in the previous round of a man who created a new way to calculate a number representing the shortest path between points, which is an incredibly useful application that will, without a doubt, rake in a lot of money for those who use it for their benefit. [1] The only reason this man does not get rights to profits from the idea he came up with is because of an arbitrary decision. My opponent seems to misinterpret the "lawnmower inventor/Einstein" example. He claims that the clear-cut difference between something that is patentable and something that is not is the "creativity of the application." Does an inventor who recreates a red lawnmower as a blue lawnmower get a patent? Of course not. Even stronger differences in aesthetic structure are irrelevant to whether or not a product is chosen to be patented. The specific facet of a product that is relevant to the "novelty" and "nonobvious" requirements of patenting [2] is the originality of its function. My opponent says that E=MC^2 should not have been patented, because another scientist could have discovered the same thing. Well, in the same way, a lawnmower that applies the theory of relativity (hypothetically), unlike any other lawnmower in use in modern times, would most likely be given a patent, even though another inventor could have discovered the same novel function that would improve a lawnmower in the same way.The arbitrariness of the duration of time a patent or copyright lasts is an issue. My opponent argues that the arbitrariness of IP and copyrights does not justify its removal from the system, comparing it to arbitrary sentencing in the prison system. But although the arbitrary sentencing structure of the prison system is not ideal, there is a case-by-case judgment that allows for variation on a spectrum, up to a lifetime of imprisonment or death—and it is judged on nameable criteria, such as severity of crime. Unlike this, the copyright and patent duration is a one-size-fits-all rule, and if it were not, then there would be no way to create a spectrum of relative durations, since the criteria would not be nameable and the spectrum of variation would have no end, so no maximum could be established. If I recreate a book by J.K. Rowling by re-typing all of the text within it and printing it out, why can I not sell it? It is not that the "item" is protected. The thing that is protected is an idea. If we decided to take "intellectual ownership" of individual words and sentences, in the same way that authors now take ownership of poems and books, then it would be to virtually impossible to write an original piece of literature or add any text to products. If I sold signs that said "Warning" on them and were hypothetically able to copyright "Warning," then no one would be able to sell literature or products with that word. Such a system would fall apart. When we expand the analogy of owning the word "Warning" or the phrase "Thank you for visiting" into ownership of the contents of a poem or a book, we see that we have the same flawsEconomicsMy opponent argues that property rights are not dependent on scarcity. This is, of course, patently absurd. Prominent economist Hanns-Herman Hopps explains it well when he says this in his book Theory of Socialism and Capitalism: "To develop the concept of property, it is necessary for goods to be scarce, so that conflicts over the use of these goods can possibly arise. It is the function of property rights to avoid such possible clashes over the use of scarce resources by assigning rights of exclusive ownership. Property is thus a normative concept: a concept designed to make a conflict-free interaction possible by stipulating mutually binding rules of conduct (norms) regarding scarce resources." [3]My opponent then claims that, in a world of no scarcity, my "stealing" his car would be wrong. "Stealing," however, by definition, is the idea of stealing another person's property; and let us not forget that property would not exist in such society without scarcity. In a society without limitations on factors that are currently scarce (such as land, food, bodily ability, and time), property would not exist and "stealing" would not occur, since ownership of property would not be necessary.Information is not scarce, because it cannot be consumed after it is generated. If I have a house and I transfer ownership to you, I no longer have ownership to a house. If I write a book and give you a copy, then I can have a copy of it and somehow maintain ownership over the contents of the copy of the book in your possession. It is a non-scarce good; it has has no inherent zero-sum-game contest for its ownership, since it can be easily replicated. Imagine if we had a magic donut that replicated itself whenever we handed it to another person; there would be no natural competition for ownership of it, because it simply replicates itself and is not scarce. They do not need to be economized; there is no price to the production of a self-replicating bagel, in our analogy. In the same way, there is no price to the idea that contains the recipe to the bagel; hence, there is no reason to artificially economize it. UtilitarianismThe opponent chooses not the pursue the utilitarian argument for IP. His dropping of this argument is justified, since the burden of proof is on him and what I had presented is simply a counter-argument to a possible case he would make.TrademarksI would argue that the use of the "trademark," as it is used, is not justified by any concept of IP, but rather as a concept that prevents a breach of contract and fraud. It is not justifiable to say that McDonald's has a right to its name that is founded on intellectual property; rather, it is the consumer's right to not be tricked into being told that a business is the same as another. Trademarks cannot be justified by IP ownership, as they often are.---The resolution is affirmed, and the opponent has yet to meet his burden of proof.---[1] In re Trovato, 33 USPQ2d 1194 (Fed Cir 1994).[2] http://www.bitlaw.com...[3] http://library.mises.org...