Brix Gomez

bag10@my.fsu.edu
Intellectual property has come to a point where the phrase has a different definition depending
on who you ask. Because of this phrases ambiguity! the case will be made against the phrase itself and
the damage it has caused to both ideological and physical inno"ations. #arge organizations like the
$I%& and others are now unfortunately using this term and further ingraining it into policy
con"ersations. Intellectual property has become a fre'uently used buzz word now! used to lump
patents! copyrights! trade secrets! and trademarks into one o"er(generalized category. &"er(
generalization is not something you want to ha"e to deal with in a court! especially by a )udge that may
not ha"e e"en a base(le"el understanding of the software he will be making a decision about. *his
technological ignorance issue could also extend to the house and the senate. $hy use flawed phrasing
when formulating policy+ ,urely this could only lead to a flawed system. By gi"ing this group of
policies this particular name! we ha"e created an en"ironment in which this topic is difficult to discuss
unless it is broken down into sub(categories. *he first of these sub(categories is the patent.
*he patent has caused all kinds of problems in its history but these issues ha"e ne"er been
worse than in our current en"ironment. *he word patent comes from the #atin patere! which means -to
open or make a"ailable for inspection.. *his explains the function of patents 'uite well. *hey basically
grant temporary property rights to the in"entor /or impro"er0 of a particular design or utility in
exchange for public disclosure of said in"ention. *his function of law was originally established to gi"e
in"entors some sort of protection against infringers and to! most of all! encourage inno"ation.
1owe"er! like many laws! patents ha"e been twisted into a weapon for businesses to use against each
other. If one does not patent a new design or utility upon fabrication! another entity can now buy out
that patent and sue you o"er infringement and win. *his situation is 'uite con"enient for go"ernments
and lawyers alike as patents /especially complex software patents0 cost a pretty penny. In this new
ocean of patent hunting sharks! e"en non(malicious businesses ha"e to patent to a"oid getting sued
when their product is already out on the market. 2nd that is if they are lucky enough to do so. In an
en"ironment as corporate as ours! huge companies are simply suing each other for popular patents /a
particular laptop design for instance0 and e"entually agreeing to some sort of cross(licensing
agreement. *his is great for companies with huge patent arsenals like 3icrosoft or ,amsung! but lea"es
smaller companies drowning in a sea of lawyer fees. In situations like these! patents ha"e effecti"ely
become monstrous barriers to entry for potential competition. #ike many other laws created with the
right intentions! patents ha"e been twisted to ser"e a purpose for large companies who want to take
ad"antage of their buying power and the 4.,.s horrible laws regarding lawyer fee payment. *his whole
fiasco has brought about the ad"ent of the patent troll. *hese patent trolls function by purchasing
patents for certain designs or items and then essentially waiting until someone else manufactures them.
2t this point! the patent troll will take his "ague patent to court along with his large amount of capital
/for the ine"itable lawyer fees0and seek repayment. *his not only hampers companies who ha"e come
up with genuinely good ideas! but also stifles growth at e"en lower le"els by discouraging competition
with big corporations and businesses. By granting someone a patent! the go"ernment is essentially
allowing people to use the full power of the go"ernment against their competition. $hat e"er happened
to being able to sell your product or idea based off 'uality+ 5undamentally! these patents are basically
temporary monopolies granted to in"entors. %roponents of intellectual property would deny this being
true due to the negati"e connotations of a monopoly but this is essentially what the go"ernment is
doing. &ur society needs to stop seeing intellectual property as a -natural right.! and start seeing it for
what it actually is6 a policy tool that has spiraled out of control.
*he copyright is another aspect of what we now know as intellectual property. 5unnily enough!
the reasons for the first copyrights were specifically for censorship purposes around the time when the
first printing presses came to 7ngland. 8ow! almost half a millennium later! copyrights are still being
used to try and censor and control people. In recent years 9ussia has cited copyright policies to allow
for seizure and assessment of political opponents laptop and desktop computers. #ikewise! 2merican
go"ernment entities ha"e been wantonly /and automatically using sifting software0 taking down media
from sites such as :ou*ube based on un)ust reasoning. ,mall entities like indi"idual "ideo uploaders
may not ha"e the means nor the time to dispute these un)ust ;3<2 take(down re'uests that can be
re'uested repeatedly. *he fact is one can not "alue personal liberties while still supporting policy tools
like the ones within the intellectual property umbrella.
Intellectual property may be a group of policy tools that were meant to promote inno"ation! but
that purpose has clearly been hi)acked by greed and predatory business. ,ome of the worlds most
inno"ati"e countries in the late 1=
th
and early >0
th
centuries /8etherlands! ,witzerland0 were completely
de"oid of patent law. ,eeing why intellectual property is causing damage to society is not "ery difficult.
?ust thinking of the lawyer fees! court fees! lawyer salaries! and money being thrown around in year
long lawsuits is enough to make your head spin. *he patent business is an o"erall net cost to society.
*hese are not the kind of results we want from laws that are meant to promote growth abo"e
e"erything. *hese laws are all somewhat flawed due to their "agueness and many times end up
protecting only the entity with the most capital to use. &nce again! to begin resol"ing this issue we
must start by being able to identify it correctly from a semantic point of "iew. *he term intellectual
property implies both that these four laws are somewhat similar /they could not be more different0 and
that intellectual property rights are somewhat similar to physical property rights. &ne main difference
separates the two. $hile physical property can not be infinitely reproduced! intellectual property can.
$hen an idea is shared! the sharer still has access to the idea. *his type of distribution of information is
what causes inno"ation. #ook no further than open source software like #inux &, or open(code gaming
workshops like ,teams tools to see this process at work. &ur society must get back to building on each
others ideas rather than wasting time trying to deceitfully tear each other down.