Saragib’s Weblog

I had a little trouble grasping the nuances of the first intellectual property article. It was really detailed and technical. Reading it felt a little like talking to my husband about what he does at work; I can grasp the basic ideas but with all the specialized language, after a while, my eyes glaze over and my mind starts to wander. However, I enjoyed the discussion last night on intellectual property. Like most good discussions, it left me with more questions then before it started. Coincidentally, the question came up again when I got home. I was reading the book Guns, Germs and Steel by Jared Diamond, before bed, and happened to be on the chapter about the development of languages. In this chapter, the author discusses the idea that almost all alphabets today are derived from a single original alphabet. He postulates that modern alphabets are the result of either copying/modification or idea diffusion (meaning a culture learned about the idea but was not exposed to an actual sample of the original alphabet).

The author then goes on to challenge some basic ideas about the nature of invention. He talks about the myth of the “lone genius” inventor and points out that some basic inventions, like the light bulb and the steam engine, were really the result of improvements upon earlier models and not an isolated idea realized by one individual. I felt like this concept had significance for the future of IP protections on the internet. I don’t have an answer but it is interesting to think that the assumptions underlying our ideas of intellectual property could be flawed, even just in part, and that by tightening protections we could be discouraging future innovation.

The author continues trying to debunk another myth relevant to IP; the idea that most inventions are created to fill a need. His premise is that very few inventions are either created to fill a genuine need or end up being used for the purpose they were invented for. Inventions like the phonograph were not created to play music, in fact the actual inventor felt this was a frivolous use of his creation, but through use, collaboration and modification by users it evolved to fill that role. This made me think about our discussions about what could and could not be copyrighted. If we deny users the right to experiment or use things in ways other than those the creator specifies are we again stifling possible innovation?

However, in a society in which you need money to survive and products, creative or otherwise, are a source of income; how do you insure fairness for the people that devote their time and energy to creation? It seems like a really complex issue without any clear answers.

The one thing I did take away from the article is that, at this point, the laws governing IP and the internet are sufficiently murky to litigate anything. This can work on the side of creativity, in that an argument can be constructed to defend just about anything, but can run counter to the creative process because arguments have to be defended in court and that costs money. The threat of a lawsuit, with all of its attendant costs, can be a powerful deterrent to experimentation. Maybe lawyers are the real creative geniuses of the whole internet IP question.