Latest Study Highlights How Damaging Intellectual Property Has Been To Biotech
from the more-evidence dept
TorrentFreak alerts us to the latest in a long line of research that highlights just how damaging the intellectual property system has been to innovation. This isn't new, of course. We've been pointing to tons of research on this subject for years, but it's great to see some more to add to the pile. And this isn't just a couple of folks with an opinion either -- but a seven year study, involving a large interdisciplinary team of folks examining all aspects of intellectual property, with the main focus being on the biotech industry. The report hits on a few key themes we've highlighted over the years:The current era of intellectual property is waning. It has been based on two faulty assumptions made nearly three decades ago: that since some intellectual property (IP) is good, more must be better; and that IP is about controlling knowledge rather than sharing it. These assumptions are as inaccurate in biotechnology – the field of science covered by this report – as they are in other fields from music to software.The full report is a good read. It's well researched and documented, and points out that listening to IP lawyers alone, or just looking at IP laws is a huge mistake in analyzing the overall impact of IP:
An analysis of IP laws alone gives a distorted understanding of how IP facilitates innovation and dissemination. Such an analysis must be complemented by an understanding of business and governmental practice as well as the public and private institutions and entities that create, grant and govern IP.There's plenty more in the report, and it's all footnoted, and some of the additional research is new to me and will be fun to explore over the next few weeks.
However, while the report's description of the problems is dead on, the report runs into trouble when it gets to the "and what do we do about it" section. It talks a lot about "new IP" which is vaguely defined, and involves a lot of wishy-washy statements about trust and collaboration and openness. It basically suggests that a bunch of different parties all have to start acting differently but doesn't necessarily explain why or how that will work. That seems... difficult, and a tad idealistic. This is really too bad, given how solid the earlier part of the report is. It's almost as if the group putting together the report saw all the problems, but couldn't come up with really concrete solutions. That's unfortunate, given that plenty of folks have shown real world examples of how the system can work just fine by simply removing IP from the equation, and watching the business models that result. Overall, this is an excellent addition to the literature in looking at the problems, but comes up short when it gets to the solutions side of the discussion.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: biotech, harm, innovation, intellectual property
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
That explains it
VOTE McCain 2008 - for change your already familiar with
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: That explains it
Yes, this is very true. For example they are dumping tons of pharmaceuticals into the water system and not even charging you for it. What more could you possibly ask for ?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: That explains it
ZOMG UR DRINKING OUR IP! SUE!! SUE!!!!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Heck, at least techDirt relies upon actual data, and not anecdotes.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Kumbaya at its best isn't close to 44 pages with references.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Instead of complaining how restrictive the chain is, why doesn't the dog just run free?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
These are the questions to ask.
Will the market work better with more government granted monopolies or fewer?
Will the market work better if the government granted monopoly last longer or shorter?
Should we even let the government grant monopolies?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: These are the questions to ask.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Another hogwash from Mikey
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Another hogwash from Mikey
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Blya mudaki
Have a good night punks
[ link to this | view in chronology ]