[image source: https://the8percent.com/how-to-steal-a-great-idea/]
This week we got to listen to Dr. Bylund argues his case against intellectual property laws. I was bummed I could not be there in person to listen to this, but I found his talk to be very informative and interesting. I thought he had some good arguments against intellectual property laws, and he has got me pretty on the fence about it. I was definitely more secure and firm in my opinion before I listened to him speak than now. Honestly, he might have gotten me, as I'm writing this I'm reconsidering my stance all together. That's pretty impressive.
Dr. Bylund’s biggest argument was that intellectual property laws actually stunt economic growth, despite the intended purpose of protecting and encouraging economic activity. He explains that since things like patents and copyrights ensure that no one can recreate or copy without permission, there can be no improvement on ideas. There are expiration dates but they do not come quickly or consistently enough to balance out the growth stunts that they cause. I think that this is an interesting argument. It is true that this a possibility and the patents/copyrights can be used for evil (for example, epipens or insulin) and it can push out competition, which means that if, like insulin, something really important and the copyright is abused, those who own the copyright can basically hold the important idea/thing hostage for gross amounts of money and no one can offer up a cheaper better deal. That is no good at all. The other argument Dr. Bylund mentions is that corruption exists and thus intellectual property laws can be corrupted. I 100% agree, though it is more in a pessimistic way in that everything is corruptible and that if people are left unchecked they are capable of being horrible. With that said, Dr. Bylund made the excellent point that patent owners can bribe or use connections in order to extend patents or even get patents passed through. This creates even stronger monopolies and shuts down opportunities for people to either compete with them or at least offer up incentives for fair pricing. I think I mentioned Edison and Tesla in either my discussion post or in another assignment for this class but the argument works both ways (very much a double edged sword). It is true that because of patent laws no one other than Edison was able to get credit or earn profit from his invention, even though he was not the only one (or the first) to invent the lightbulb. However, there can be a case that if another inventor was able to get a patent in time, it would have prevented Edison from stealing and using other underhanded tactics to secure it. Louis le Prince was in the process of getting his ‘moving picture’ patented when he went missing, but had he successfully earned the patent, Edison would not have been able to rob him of his legacy. Pros and Cons to both, though really when talking about Edison he really was able to use the patent system to his advantage, and he was absolutely not a good guy. I guess the biggest downside to patents is it does not matter how clever or smart a person is, especially if their competition is a better business person.
With all of that said, there are still arguments to be made for intellectual property laws that cannon be ignored or dismissed. For example, it still provides protections for inventors and despite Dr. Bylund's argument for intellectual property laws stunting economic growth, it can also help prosper and encourage it. By giving inventors a safety net and a way to guarantee profit, people can be assured that they can commit to providing ideas and inventions without having to also fight for a paycheck. However, I do see the whole point of, well ok the economy grows up to a certain point before everyone has to wait for more room to come up with ideas. That's fair. However, I think with a little regulation and refining, intellectual laws could be improved and made more helpful. He had a really good argument though, like I was not even near a fence before I listened to his argument and I am not easily swayed but man, I'm almost convinced completely that intellectual laws are the enemy.
