Intellectual Property Discussion in the Classroom? 135
Nick M asks: "I'm a TA for a Computer Ethics course at Lehigh University. My professor is currently in China, and I'm charged with the task of teaching the chapter on Intellectual Property. I have read the book (Cyberethics, Spinello, 3rd Ed.), and can see that this could be the most boring 75 minutes of their lives. What topics, examples and questions do you think would stimulate a heated discussion on intellectual property rights which would display the complexities of both sides of the issue?"
the guy who invented intermittent windshield wiper (Score:5, Informative)
This [forbes.com] could be a good starting point (an article listing some pioneers in inventions, and some of their fates).
Also, this article [theautochannel.com] is a synopsis of Robert Kearns' battle with Ford over his IP/patent rights for the invention of the intermittent windshield wiper.
Re:complexities on both sides? (Score:3, Informative)
I'll break it down for you in baby bites.
If IP isn't respected, it won't be profittable for corporations to spend multi-millions discovering new drugs, or making big budget movies, or writing hugely complicated commercial software.
Now there are obvious counter-arguments that governments and philanthropists could fund the drug research. The counter-counter argument is that's unlikely to happen with the same magnitude of university-corporate research.
The counter-argument to the software is using open-source. Except again, production is unlikely to match the output of businesses when profit is the motive instead of altruism.
For the movies, sure there is funding for the arts and filmmaking, but I don't see any government ever paying for the production of Terminator 4.
Re:complexities on both sides? (Score:3, Informative)
drugs companies will not invest ten million dollars in a new drug if that drug is trivially copied the next day by a rival who spends zero on development. To do so, would be to effectivly just cripple you own competitiveness, and drive yourself out of business by increased relative costs. This is not rocket science.
the concept of IP is absolutely necesary because it is the ONLY viable way of ensuring that research and development costs of a product can be recouped by those who front up the cash.
99% of people with even a basic grasp of economics understand this. I look forward to you explaining to me how drugs companies will invest money in a product in a situation where IP rights did not exist. I won't hold my breath though, seeing as though it appears that all the major drugs companies investing money in research are firm defenders of their IP. SOme might suggest that the need for IP is flipping obvious, others could point to the fact that those doing the investment defend their IP (and conclude quite logically that they would not invest without a gurantee that their ip is defended).
I'm sure you find this post 'worthless' and 'flamebait' because it doesnt justify you illegally copying music. I guess it doesnt matter if we dont get new pharmaceutical research, as long as your ipod hard disk is full huh?