Satoshi No No is a techno-thriller that hinges on mistaken identity, but I also tried to make it a novel about ideas. One of the pet ideas of its protagonist, Chip, is that intellectual property (IP) laws are a net negative for society. IP laws comprise patents, copyrights, and trademarks, many of which exert a drag on freedom and innovation . Chip is no libertarian, and neither am I. But I’d like to briefly explain why I put those words in his mouth.
IP laws amount to restrictions on free expression: you can’t distribute a song that you know without the permission of the copyright holder; you can’t sell a product that you have built without the permission of the patent holder. While we might think of the digital representation of these things as tangible goods that have the legal protection of property rights, they are, in fact, just information. Both a song and a product blueprint are specific ideas that can be expressed as a series of zeros and ones. The fundamental difference between IP and physical property is that the information that makes up IP can be reproduced perfectly and perpetually without any loss of the original. Information wants to be free.
Where is the benefit?
I have to acknowledge that, a priori, I think we shouldn’t have restrictions on expression unless we can demonstrate a large and tangible benefit to society. So: where is the benefit to society?
After a thorough historical and economic analysis, many scholars have concluded that IP laws actually stifle technological progress and prolong harmful monopolies. The most relevant work on this is probably “Against Intellectual Monopoly” by Boldrin and Levine. You can read their latest version online free at http://www.dklevine.com/general/intellectual/againstfinal.htm or order the paperback off Amazon (I have no connection to the authors.)
Forestalling some common objections
One major argument against loosening IP laws is that it would reduce the economic incentive to produce expensive, life-saving drugs. But Boldrin and Levine show that the majority of funding for drug research breakthroughs is already socialized, as it probably should be. Drug companies are mostly using patents to let them keep overspending on marketing that should not be needed or wanted in an evidence-based field. Patents are also abused to create trivial reformulations of generic drugs to squeeze out competitors, or for simple profiteering. As the United States and other countries continue to increase the socialization of health care, there will be increasing pressure to bypass patent protection and directly fund the development of the most important drugs.
In the arts, IP mostly concerns copyright law, but we’ve seen that many of the best and most enduring works of art were created without copyright protection. Do we really believe that the human drive to create art, music, and literature would be stifled without the largely illusory incentive provided by copyright profits? The vast majority of artists — including yours truly — never expect significant income from their copyrighted work, and yet they still create content.
People will always be driven to create beautiful and useful things for the sheer joy of doing it and for the recognition it brings. Furthermore, no matter what IP laws are on the books, they are irrelevant to the historical question of who first invented something. The first person to publish their invention on record gets that crown.
Trademarks are mostly OK
Arguably the weakest and therefore least offensive type of IP law is trademark. Here I actually have no strong objection. Trademark infringement, if you boil it down, is simply a specific type of fraud: it’s deceiving the public into thinking they are dealing with a genuine product or agent of a company, when in fact they are not. A lot of needless bureaucracy has grown up around trademark registration and legal defense, but at its heart, trademark law simply aims to protect the public and achieve clarity in the markets. If trademark law existed without patents or copyrights, a company would be free to copy and improve on their competitor’s products as long as they didn’t try to label them in a counterfeit way.
Why does it matter?
Our attitude toward IP law reflects the tension between the rights and roles of society and those of individuals. Even if we don’t personally collide with IP law, we should be aware of all that it implies for freedom and equality in the digital age.