7 Ways To Ruin A Technological Revolution

The speaker criticizes the WIPO for not employing empiricists or economists and for not considering evidence or the impact of IP on information economies. Their focus is on claims of unfairness and justice rather than empirical data.

Intellectual property law often focuses on protecting the final outputs (like code or novels) but neglects the importance of inputs, which are often other people's outputs. This approach overlooks the creative potential that arises from building upon existing works.

This refers to a perspective that focuses solely on the costs and negative aspects of technology, such as piracy and illicit copying, while ignoring the benefits like increased market size, easier distribution, and better targeting.

Openness is scary because it implies a lack of control, which can lead to issues like viruses and spam. Historically, even well-intentioned individuals might have favored controlled systems over open protocols, fearing the potential for misuse.

He suggests practical changes like moving towards 'trusted systems' on computers, abandoning net neutrality, making policy in accessible venues, and actively engaging in the political process with clear arguments.

This theory describes how international IP harmonization tends to only increase rights (harmonize up), never exceptions. Rights are mandatory, while exceptions are optional, leading to a global ratchet effect of stronger IP protections.

Hollywood sued Sony, claiming BetaMax facilitated copyright infringement. However, the Supreme Court ruled against Hollywood, and the technology ultimately saved the movie industry by enabling video rentals, which became a significant revenue source.

This refers to the expansion of intellectual property rights, analogous to the historical enclosure of common lands. It suggests that IP law is increasingly privatizing what was once in the public domain, potentially locking up culture.

The patent system suffers from issues like 'business method patents' which are toxic to innovation, a 'privatized public domain' where patents are used defensively for cross-licensing rather than true innovation, and diminishing patent quality. The lines for non-obviousness have become blurred.

Many countries lack the broad, flexible fair use provisions found in the US, instead relying on specific, enumerated exceptions. This can make core activities like web search legally questionable in those jurisdictions, though judges may still interpret laws flexibly.

The US system primarily bases IP on public benefit and utilitarian encouragement of innovation. Many other countries, particularly influenced by the French 'droit d'auteur,' view IP as a sacred, inherent right of the creator, with less emphasis on public benefit.

Determining the right level is difficult. One approach is to examine empirical data, like observing economies with and without new IP rights, and analyzing trends in patent renewal rates. Extending copyright for deceased individuals is also questioned as a spur to innovation.

The reward-to-risk ratios and product cycles differ significantly. While some argue for industry-specific IP, others suggest adjusting metrics like the 'level of skill in the art' for patents or damages judgments within the existing framework, rather than creating entirely new systems.