Information Technology Reference
In-Depth Information
New ideas in the form of inventions and artistic works can improve the quality of life for
the members of a society. Some people are altruistic and will gladly share their creative
energies. For example, Benjamin Franklin (1706-1790) invented many useful items,
including an improved woodstove, the lightning rod, the odometer, and bifocals. He did
not patent any of them. Franklin said, “As we enjoy great advantages from the invention
of others, we should be glad of an opportunity to serve others by any invention of ours;
and this we should do freely and generously” [11, p. 28]. However, most people find the
allure of wealth to be a strong inducement for laboring long hours in the hope of creating
something useful. So even if there are no natural rights to intellectual property, a society
may choose to grant intellectual property rights to people because of the beneficial
consequences.
The authors of the Constitution of the United States recognized the benefits soci-
ety reaps by encouraging creativity. Article I, Section 8, of the US Constitution gives
Congress the power to “promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts by securing for
limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings
and Discoveries.”
If a person has the right to control the distribution and use of a piece of intellectual
property, there are many opportunities for that person to make money. For example,
suppose you build a better mousetrap and the government gives you ownership of this
design. You may choose to manufacture the mousetrap yourself. Anyone who wants the
better mousetrap must buy it from you, because no other mousetrap manufacturer has
the right to copy your design. Alternatively, you may choose to license your design to
other manufacturers, who will pay you for the right to build mousetraps according to
your design.
On the other hand, it is possible for you to be rewarded for your creativity without
the new device ever reaching the public. Suppose you sell an exclusive license for your
better mousetrap to the company that dominates the mousetrap market. The company
chooses not to manufacture the new mousetrap because—for whatever reason—it can
make more money selling the existing technology. In this situation you and the company
benefit, but society is deprived access to the new, improved technology.
Society benefits the most when inventions are in the public domain and anyone can
take advantage of them. Going back to the mousetrap example, we would like everyone
in society who needs a mousetrap to get the best possible trap. If someone invents a
superior mousetrap, the maximum benefit would result if all mousetrap manufacturers
were able to use the better design. On the other hand, if the inventor of the superior
mousetrap did not have any expectation of profiting from her new design, she may not
have bothered to invent it. Hence there is a tension between the need to reward the
creators of intellectual property by giving them exclusive rights to their ideas and the
need to disseminate these ideas as widely as possible.
The way Congress has traditionally addressed this tension is through a compromise.
It has granted authors and inventors exclusive rights to their writings and discoveries but
