By the time management gets wind of the “unanticipated competition,” especially by their own employees, the market opportunity is lost, along with all of the potential profits that could have been made if the patent process worked as planned.

When product manufacturing profits can only occur through litigation to retrieve illicit and unjust enrichment from competitors, there is no longer a manufacturing and sales market; there is only a litigation market, and streamlining the costs of retrieval rather than the costs of manufacturing is the critical test of “profits.”

When the Chinese are knocking off products before they leave the manufacuturing facility to be shipped, why would manufacturers use those facilities where they have no control over ripoffs?

Suing in China is impractical – so at the end of the day, being a manufacturer doesn’t pay at all.

Therefore, the American patent process is useless to prevent knockoffs, and becomes a sham process for the ignorant believers who think it will.

Ben, what is your definition of property rights anyways? If some group of thugs kills a bunch of Mexicans and native North American indians, steals their land, and resells it to you, is your right to hold that stolen property the “inalienable property rights” you are referring to?

Microsoft always lived by the motto “embrace and extend”. They way I see it, if the east is going to dominate the next century, and if their way is the way of The Pirates of Silicon Valley (ie Apple’s way, or Microsoft’s way), then we ought to warm up to the idea of getting used to it (embrace), and finding a way to add value (extend). Why go against the flow, if you already know the east has you outsmarted, outnumbered, and strategically & economically outflanked?

The eastern way is not the end of the world. They were always the real pioneers in holistic medicine, biodynamic gardening, informatica (the paper & printing mentioned by Marquelle), etc.

If you have the ability to add value, then you have nothing to fear, and I think you will accumulate good karma currency. You would be in good company on this website, in Casey circles, or in Ayn’s Gault’s Gulch. But if, on the other hand, you are sitting on a bunch of stolen or derivative property, and are hoping to retire on the licensing fees or extortionists revenues, then I think your personal strategy will not fare as well in the next century as it might have in the last.

cheers

Here is an interesting thought experiment. What would happen if there had been zero intellectual property rights the last 200 yrs? Would we have the explosion of new ideas and technology we have had?

Let’s start near the beginning of Intellectual Property in 1802 with the creation of the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO). A little known fact about the USPTO is that it was originally conceived as a means by which to capture, catalog, and share information to the betterment of mankind. It also, of course, provided the inventor of this new art with the opportunity to lay claim to and profit from their ideas for a very limited period of time (14 yrs in most cases). After the claim expires, anyone has access to use it freely (a la Nike Air, ). Before that time period, other persons may study the disclosed art (patent) and figure out ways to build upon or change the implementation in such a way that the original idea literally gives birth to a myriad of others that did not exist prior to this art being disclosed to the world. Patents are required to be written so someone skilled in art (engineering, tech, etc.) can study the patent and reproduce the art it teaches exactly. Intellectual Property catalogs human knowledge. There are numerous problems with the USPTO (I am no fan), but in concept it has been very useful to mankind.

A very strong argument can be made that the very existence of intellectual property has spawned more new ideas and benefits to mankind than than any other mechanism we have designed thus far. The right to intellectual property actually encourages innovation and improvement. How many entrepreneurs and inventors would put in the long hours and sleepless nights required to produce a truly novel idea with no hope of being able to enjoy the fruits of their labors? Further, who would put in the effort to create a new idea when one could just use one from someone else?

In theory, IP protects the inventors who create the innovations we enjoy today and it forces competition via innovation, the end result of the last 200 years has been absolutely staggering.

It is easy to assume that IP encourages companies to sit on their laurels. In some cases it does, but we can also see that if they do, they are toast. Remember, it only gives the inventor rights to their idea for the short period of 14 years.

There is nothing easier than to reverse engineer something and IP protects against this. I am for property rights.

Simon, I’m surprised you are not taking a firmer stand on the side of person property…

Until next time,
Ben R

Keep up the good work.