Joey7F's Journal: HOT SE2

My essay for history of technology

The United States Consititution clearly assigns Congress the right to govern protections matters of intellectual property with the sole restraint enumerated being that such protections on creative works must be limited in nature. Since 1790 there has been a struggle to maintain a thriving public domain while at the same time encouraging creativity by granting creators exclusivity over their works. Our founding fathers meant for intellectual property laws to encourage growth of technology and creativity. However, their solution to set an intentionally ambigous restriction on this issue has proven to be rife with problematic proclivities. Moreover, an unfortunate trend is developing. The balance of patents has shifted away from the American ideal of a hardworking inventor toiling in his attic to solve a problem, to a toiling lab worker for a large company solving the problems of their bottom line.

There was a case, Eldred v. Ashcroft, which recently was decided by the Supreme Court, that challenged copyright durations. While upon initial glance this may seem unrelated to the matter at hand, it has profound ramifications for the future of patents and intellectual property in general. The crux of Eldred's argument is that a retroactive extension of copyrights, which could apply equally to patents, are unconstitutional and against the intent of the framers when they penned the Constitution.

A patent is, effectively, a sanctioned monopoly provided for by the federal government. This can both advance and hinder technological development. A prime example of a patent that did both, is the telephone. The protection of the telephone allowed a telecom monopoly to rise and create what is arguably the source our current communications revolution, the transistor. The only reason why this occurred was because Bell Labs had seemingly infinite resources to put in r&d. However, the lack of competition created an artificially high "fair market value" and because they were the only telecommunications company, they saw little reason to upgrade their infrastructure or improve their service.

The problem with assessing the impact of patents is that the effect of stifling technology is what we will be most apparent. We can't see the creative genius that decides not to pursue an innovative venture, because he believes his ideas will be exploited by others. This makes the patent argument seem deceivingly one-sided. Of course, there are sometimes examples where patents could be completely negative.

On the brink of war, President Bush surprised the country with a commitment of 1.2 billion dollars funding research to create a hydrogen-based engine. While this is a highly hypothetical example, what if a company patents a combustion technique that allowed hydrogen cars to flourish then sells the rights to an oil company? We would have to halt innovation for the next 17 years even though the buyer has no interest in furthering development of the technology.

In conclusion, patents should be viewed as a necessary evil. Without a protection in place, the inventor will not have the incentive to invest the time and resources into his creation. On the other hand long patent terms aren't likely to "promote the progress of useful sciences." The terms of intellectual property will likely face many challenges, legal and otherwise, in the coming century. Due to congressional handling of the issue, the laws will likely favor those who donate the most money to our representatives, which may or may not be in the best interest of their constituents.