Writing 09: Intellectual Property

Intellectual Property has become increasing relevant as society has shifted from away from smaller more agrarian communities towards larger, more technologically driven urban communities. In the past farming techniques did not need to be as closely guarded as the markets were relatively small and the need for cooperation high. The markets today are global and the corporations much larger, leading to a need for intellectual property protection along with a declining need for cooperation. Patents exist within these large markets to allegedly safeguard innovation. The inventor is allowed to profit off a patent for twenty years, either by producing it himself or licensing others to do.

There is danger in protecting intellectual property this way. Under the current system a patent can be acquired without a product ever being manufactured, simply a broad idea is enough. This leads to patent trolling in which entities apply for a buy a large range of patents, many of which are not currently being made, in the hope that they can one day force other creators to pay a licensing fee to actually create the patented item. This does not safeguard innovation, but instead suppresses it. Inventors are disincentivized from finding ways to create patented ideas.

The failure of patent law invites suggestions for improvements. I believe that perhaps a patent should be required to show proof of being able to be produced rather than only the idea and that patents not actively in use might should lapse into the public domain faster than those being used. These changes might help lower the impact of patent trolls while still honoring the protective aspect of patents.

Another issue arising from the changing nature of the global economy is that of software and the rights of consumers. In the past if someone purchased a physical system, it was legal for that individual to take apart the machine and adapt it to their own needs. They could not reproduce it for sale without violating patent laws, but they could repair or adapt it to their own needs. The advent of software products has changed that aspect of ownership. It is now often illegal to take apart and adapt the software of certain products and services. Even the right of repair has slowly disappeared. Many modern laptops cannot be repaired at anything but a licensed repair shop, where prices are carefully controlled by the business.

Software fundamental differences to physical products have led to some interesting developments in how ideas can be shared. A variety of licenses now exist under which software can be shared for little or no cost. The software available through these licenses is often essential, building blocks upon which larger more proprietary systems can be created. Some of these licenses require that all code using it be shared under the same license while others simply require attribution. The widespread use of some of these essential software tools and their openness has led to problems vulnerability being exposed across a large number of systems, but has also led to quick detection and fixes for those vulnerabilities, such as HeartBleed and ShellShock.

Intellectual Property cannot be treated the same as physical systems, but the current system does have failings. The concept of ownership has changed drastically with the introduction of a technologically driven economy and will continue to shift as legislation slowly adapts to our new reality. The definition of innovation has changed, it is no longer a tinkerer or group of tinkerers working on a physical invention, but rather a community building software tools off the back of existing technologies, and intellectual property laws should change to reflect that new reality.