In class today we discussed the introduction to David M. Berry's Copy, Rip, Burn (Pluto, 2008). One of Berry's arguments is that debates about intellectual property should be situated against the broader economic, political and social shift from an industrial to a post-industrial society. The language of rights, theft, piracy etc can disguise both the contingent nature of intellectual property legislation and the ideological interests it serves. Have a look at these user-friendly (and very useful) resources about intellectual property: can you detect any ideological assumptions that underpin their apparently objective presentation of the law?
I think that the system seems very biased in favour of established firms and businesses over small first-time inventors, because of the money and process involved in aquiring a patent. Big firms have the money and manpower/time to effectively blanket an area of the market they may not even move into themselves, simply to stop others encroaching on their territory, or even making progress at all. This system makes it difficult for a first time inventor to enter the market as before they even start out they are hit with the cost of a patent on top of the cost of R&D. I think that as a result of this the current way of protecting intellectual property is weighted in the favour of monopolies in the market, thus reducing variation in the market, efficiency, progress and customer choice.
ReplyDelete