Intellectual Property

According to Con, economic scarcity is what constitutes whether or not something can rightfully be considered property. The dictionary defines property as being that which a person owns, so the question essentially becomes whether or not one can claim ownership of their ideas. I'll begin by addressing what we can rightfully own. My opponent has agreed to discuss IP within a capitalist framework, which of course embraces private property (that is - what an individual can claim as belonging to them, or what they have authority over pertaining to that of which they own). Legitimate ownership is either granted or inherent. For instance, if I decide to give Con the book that I own, he would become the new owner. Without granting Con ownership of my property, assuming it as his own would simply be stealing. On the contrary, inherent ownership isn't necessarily granted but recognized by acknowledging one's right to the fruits of their own labor. Ergo, if I bake a cake, it is understood that the cake is my property. One cannot be forced to labor for another, nor can one expect that another be compensated for the labor of someone else. In a capitalist society, compensating labor is agreed upon by accepting labor. For instance someone else must get my permission before expecting to benefit from my labor without paying me; they are not simply entitled to it without my consent (that's slavery). Keeping that in mind, it seems one can indeed own their labor as property. After all this was the very logic behind property to begin with; the idea that property (land) would become yours just because you worked on it. In other words, labor --> property. As such, what one can inherently own (like labor and ideas) is really the purest form of ownership that there is. I am completely responsible for my labor - it was produced by me, and only exists because of me - which is not the case with land. Thus all the capital going into making scarce goods comes from resources never legitimately owned anyway, unless you accept the concept that laboring for something grants ownership which capitalists do. In that case, it seems that things like labor and ideas are the best examples of rightful ownership; these things would not exist without actual productivity of a particular agent who could grant ownership of them authentically. So far Con has made it seem that IP is simply referring to the concept of protecting the monopolized rights to one's idea, instead of acknowledging that IP seeks to protect the rights to one's labor. Indeed the kind of ideas we are discussing are not just frivolous thoughts, but often the result of tireless hard work and dedication (not to mention money spent on education to help shape these ideas). For instance, a computer programmer might work relentlessly to figure out an algorithm that would make an awesome feature on a particular website. A fellow programmer with more opportunities and/or resources (capital) might be able to apply that algorithm to use this application on a bigger scale at a faster rate and receive a lot more money on its behalf. As a result, the second programmer profits immensely and perhaps unfairly based on the first programmer's labor. Without Programmer 1's permission to profit from his work, this is equivalent to theft. Con's advocation rewards not the person whose labor is most significant, but the person who already has the capital to implement an idea most effectively. In this example, it would greatly devalue the labor that the first programmer should have some compensation for. Consider this scenario: Suppose I worked retail and spent 30 minutes with a customer convincing her to buy more items, thus earning me more commission. However at the last minute, my co-worker decides to ring up the customer I worked with because their register is working faster than mine. As a result they are compensated for my work without my permission. Even if they didn't technically violate any rules, we can see how this is problematic and unfair. The "first mover" theory is not always applicable; one is not always appropriately compensated for their original work. If they are, they will likely be exploited. Con says people should only have rights to their idea since that's all they've created. With the algorithm example, a formula might just be a bunch of numbers and letters, but applied in a certain context it could mean huge amounts of compensation. Should the algorithm's designer not receive anything because the letters and numbers themselves are inherently worthless? Or do we acknowledge labor as worthy of pay even if technically something has no inherent worth? For instance massage therapy is "worthless" unless we give it value. IP laws protect the idea that one's labor is of value even if it can't be represented physically with a material item. Labor doesn't only refer to the actual production of a product, but also work on an idea that becomes integral toward a product's production. Regarding the the economy, Con notes that IP creates monopolies that are bad for competition and increase costs. However it's easy to combat this argument by using capitalist principles themselves. The market determines a product's value, therefore an item that is priced too high would not be embraced. The laws of supply and demand would be effective at decreasing the product's cost. Lowering prices for the masses is not a sufficient argument for abandoning IP, just as it's not a sufficient argument for setting a price ceiling. Con also says that patents hinder innovation when in fact they encourage it. They promote the publication of useful ideas at the price of giving the one who publishes an idea a temporary monopoly over it. This encourages innovation among competitors to come up with alternatives or improvements thereby fostering and enhancing innovation and competition, while still ensuring the creator is appropriately compensated for their intellectual contribution. Because patents are temporary, I reject Con's assertion that they make it impossible for others to build or improve upon existing ideas. Economists estimate that two-thirds of the value of large businesses in the U.S. can be traced to intangible assets, and note that "IP intensive" industries are estimated to generate 72 percent more value than non-IP industries indicating these laws do not hinder but help the economy [1]. Additionally, evidence shows that there is a positive and strengthened impact of the IP system on areas such as research and development, foreign direct investment and technology transfer [2]. We should consider the relevance of IP laws today instead of relying on a flawed example like Watts, who operated during a time when IP laws were much more stringent. It's possible to reform IP laws to suit the needs of today's economy. One option are IP pools which "may provide pro-competitive benefits by integrating complementary technologies, reducing transaction costs, clearing blocking positions and avoiding costly infringement litigation" [3]. The high cost of research and development in such competitive global markets has increased the need to minimize these costs, while reducing the risk of failing to create marketable products. To combat this we've figured out that product standardization and joint product development is helpful, which is sustained and encouraged via the concept of IP [4]. Con has said that his burden is to show that IP rights are not legitimate property rights (which I feel I have negated), and that society is better off without them. Of course this is irrelevant; a capitalist system does not care about what's good for society, but rather protecting the rights of the individual - which makes IP even more appropriate. [1] http://tinyurl.com... [2] http://tinyurl.com... [3] U.S. Department of Justice and Federal Trade Commission [4] http://tinyurl.com...