I know it is a seemingly dull topic but I think at its core it is very interesting. What do you guys think about the role of intellectual property rights in the US? Do you believe we are doing it right? Should it be different? Should intellectual property rights not even exist? Would society be better or worse off?

Where do the different political affiliations stand on this issue? Are there significant differences or do republicans, democrats, and libertarians all believe the same general thing on this issue?

In B4 Neblis.

http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/41...rights-257274/

or for the mad max perspective

http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/41...c-land-644272/

EDIT: As there are already prior general discussions about this topic, I want to turn it to something more specific. Patents. Relatively frequently, there is a story in the news about a company (today it is RIM) paying some crazy 8 figure sum for what seems to be a complicated patent infringement case. I am not an expert on this at all nor have I a well thought out opinion on the subject but I know that a very large sum of money and resources are devoted to protecting patents and litigating patent infringements. Whenever I see such large amounts of resources devoted to something like that it catches my eye and I wonder if it really has to be like that.

So for the sake of this discussion, let's keep it to patent law and whether it is good how it is, needs reform, or should be abolished. Mods, if you can edit the title to something more specific to this, I would greatly appreciate it.

Richard A. Posner is a federal judge and considered an authority on patent law.

Cliff's:
Patent laws are necessary to promote innovation.
Patent laws are currently broken for many industries, namely the tech industry. He has criticized both the frivolous nature of many patents granted by the patent office and the unnecessarily long lifespan of patents given how quickly the tech industry evolves.

TY. Do you really believe there would be no innovation if there were no patents? I mean the consumer (demand) still exists all the same, so there is just as much money to be made by being the best in any given market. Just because people can rip you off right away, that would put even more emphasis on the need to be first in the market and to make your product stand out.

Take cellphones. I have no idea how much money is spent annually in the world on cellphones, but I'd imagine it is a HUGE amount of money. If there was no such thing as patents, do you really believe companies still wouldn't be competing their assess off to try to get a piece of that enormous pie? Not to mention, from a practical standpoint, technology evolves so quickly that if a company spends 6 months trying to replicate a good product, by the time it is out there itself, it will likely be passed by the latest and greatest. Even if it wasn't, is the consumer really hurt by a competitor willing to offer the same product at a more efficient price?

I just think it reminds me a bit of the government protecting us from big bad monopolies. It sounds good in theory, but in reality, the government often causes the opposite affect, often stifling innovation or actually creating monopolies all while inflating a giant and worthless market in litigation. The real victim, as usual, being the public.

There will always be innovation but some things require so much investment and up front capital (Posner cites pharmaceuticals) that nobody would bother without patent protections.

The same argument can be applied to any technology that's easy to duplicate but difficult to develop.

Some level of protection has to exist. Otherwise, for example, AMD could simply copy Intel chips and call it a day. That for obvious reasons is undesirable, even if AMD would always be a couple months behind.

Knowledge is not a finite resource to be hoarded for private profit. Knowledge is non scarce and that's a good thing. The human capacity for improvement and collaboration over time is what makes society what it is - and it's deeply unfortunate that this flow of collaboration and improvement is being stifled and redirected by bureaucrats protecting the profit margins of private corporations.

This is pretty much my position. Patent law is based on a social contract / reciprocity argument. The useful life-cycle of modern technology has altered the dynamics of this deal such that it is not much more favourable to the inventor. I'm not sure if there is a solution to this -- I did a lot of work on this problem ten years ago and there did not appear to be any alternative solution.

This is a separate issue from the US patent office being staffed by morons that keep granting patents for stuff that is clearly non-patentable.

Magicians though!

When will the European software industry collapse?

Europe has a very similar IP system as the one we have in North America.

I am only talking about patent law not the entire spectrum of IP.

Their patent law is also the same as ours.

That's a pretty crazy statement.

1) The legal systems of most European nations aren't even close to being the same as the US legal system. Most European nations have a civil law tradition whereas the US has a common law tradition.
2) Pretty sure there is no such thing as EPC52 in US law
3) The application of the laws is very different

This distinction is of not relevance when discussing IP

Article 52 is not a good thing. Software has not been protected by patent law but rather copyright. Where software and patents meet is with respect to the patentability of processes which are then implemented in software. Article 52 has taken a perfectly clear distinction and made it more confusing leading to rather inconsistent outcomes.

I claim you are wrong. Simply stating your claim again does not advance the argument. If you wish to claim that the European application of patent law is different you have to give examples of this.

I can think of a handful of examples but all of those are the results of mistakes not actual difference in law and a handful of wrong decisions does not constitute a different system but simply a need for better hiring practices.

Can you please explain in detail how the European approach to patents is different than the North American approach?

It is extremly relevant. Case by case pro patent rulings carry a lot more weight in common law nations.

Only if you pay me to do so.