Should Intellectual Property be Abolished?

“The US patent system adds the fuel of interest to the fire of genius in the discovery and production of new and useful things” Abraham Lincoln, former US President. This has long been the view of our modern society, protecting inventors’ ideas, what could go wrong? However, the system has since evolved bringing forth the question of whether it is still as necessary as it once was or if it has now become a hindrance.

For pharmaceutical companies, patents are a must, reportedly investing US$71.4 billion in research and development in 2017. The abolishment of patents would mean that other companies could copy their formula making the drug for pure profit discouraging innovations as all of a companies guaranteed revenue would become non-existent in an instant. Moreover, it would encourage knock-off companies selling cheaper versions of the drug to poorer markets in places like Lagos, Nigeria leading to more deaths as the production isn’t monitored as well as it should be with 64,000 to 158,000 people dying per year due to fake antimalarials in Sub-Saharan Africa. Although this is a strong case for intellectual property, there are many downsides for other sectors in our world economy.

During the British industrial revolution, James Watt a great engineer spent months developing a better way to develop a steam engine, and even longer securing a patent, his business partner extending the patent even further by lobbying in parliament. This allowed the pair to destroy their rivals, creating a monopoly which stunted innovation, for example, Jonathan Hornblower who created a preferable steam engine found himself imprisoned and his life as a creator destroyed before his own eyes. This negatively affected the sector, rivals having to wait until the year 1800, 31 years after the patent had been issued in 1769. When the patent finished, inventors released ideas that they had been sitting on for years, the industry booming after it was lifted as competition increases output as companies fight to beat competitors.

As time has moved on, rather than making intellectual property rights more restricted, they have become more expansive, originally lasting 14 years in the US although they now last over 70 years after the death of the author which, as proven by professors Michele Boldrin and David Levine, has had a pernicious effect on the economy as a whole. In software, they are especially harmful. Mark Cuban, owner of the Dallas Mavericks voices his feelings calling for the abolishment of patents as software programmes have become intellectual property meaning that the copyright holder can stop people replicating any or all of the significant code and in addition the patent can forbid the use of independently developed programmes  that produce the same result in a different way. This can stop independent people and smaller companies from creating better versions of the software, potentially financially crippling if they chose to release it as NPE’s (non-practising entities) buy up patents with no intention of selling a product except to make money off expensive lawsuits. This hinders innovation as smaller inventors don’t have the time to look through the previous 30 years of patents or the money to pay lawyers to protect them, stopping a company before it can even begin. This allows older companies to linger around with no intention of advancing the sector as they bully smaller innovators in court and parliament through lobbying.

Another problem that intellectual property has created is economic powerhouses such as Apple and Microsoft fighting it out in the courtroom, buying up patents for defensive measures. As of 2017, the US Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) issuing a record high 320,000 patents meaning that companies are spending millions on legal fees rather than on employees or the development of their products. However, as these companies try to stunt their oppositions growth through patents it has a wider effect. Vague ideas such as Amazon’s “one-click” idea of buying a product with one click has become patented which does nothing but annoy other companies as, as an idea, it is far from revolutionary offering no real benefit. Moreover, other people are acquiring patents for phrases such as Kylie Jenner owning the legal right to: “Rise and Shine,” a phrase which she did not create but was only the first to patent it giving her the absurd power to issue a cease and desist if any online creator or company mentions the phrase or posts it online. Although some companies are trying to hinder their opposition, some are moving in the opposite direction. For example, in 2014, Elon Musk’s Tesla opened up its patent archive to try and expand the industry as a whole calculating that Tesla would benefit in the long run as it would further the quality of technology in terms of electric cars showing that patents aren’t as necessary as they may seem.

However, how will the abolishment of intellectual property rights benefit the individual innovator? Firstly, they will have a head start as there is no company to rival them, furthermore giving them the title of the originators which creates a more positive perception in the mind of the average consumer giving them an advantage over their eventual rivals whilst creating further innovation as companies fight to be better than their competition, creating better products for the consumer at lower prices as there is no monopoly over said product. This will also hopefully create more jobs as more inventors are needed and companies are willing to spend more on the creation process of a product, hopefully increasing wages.

In conclusion, the world would benefit from the abolishment of intellectual property rights compared to the current minefield that it is. However, if patents were weakened in power (for example only lasting 10 or 15 years) like they were in the beginning, it would protect industries such as the pharmaceutical industry from losing billions in revenue whilst still allowing for innovation between rivals in other sectors benefiting everyone as a whole.

Oscar Charles-Barks, Year 12.