What advice on IP policy do you have for the US presidential candidates?

Comments

1. Kaitlin Mara says

   31/01/2008 at 4:26 pm

   Welcome to the new IP-Watch feature! As a background to this week’s question, you may be interested in reading our recent feature on what US presidential candidates have already said about IP issues. The story from 28 January now includes a table detailing statements (if any) the contenders have made in several key IP issue areas.

   Look forward to hearing your thoughts.

   Reply

2. Konstantinos Karachalios says

   04/02/2008 at 4:36 pm

   Thanks, IP-Watch, for this comprehensive selection and overview.
   It is interesting to see what a role IP does play at this level of political controversy in the US and that there is a wide variety of informed opinions.
   I do not remember to have seen something similar in Europe during election campaigns.
   This goes against a common misperception in Europe about the level of the political debate and culture in the US.

   Further, it confirms the trend that copyright issues (access to internet, music, video download, etc.) may find themselves at the front line and become the most contested topics within the “IP family”.
   The consequence is that what historically converged (industrial property from the one side + copyright and related rights from the other ) to a powerful alliance, might diverge, if the tensions on the one leg become too strong or endanger to “contaminate” politically also the other.

   Finally, what would I, a European, advise a US politician (whether presidential candidate or not, does not matter) ?

   The US cannot remain indifferent in front of the two widening gaps (almost wounds) in the body of the global knowledge economy:
    The gap between logic of technology (accelerating and dislocating cutting-edge knowledge towards Asia) and political perception about “national interest” in order to maintain uncontested hegemonical status quo
    The digital divide, leaving half of the humanity at the “railway station”, with no chance for jumping on the train. The Bali Conference on Climate Change and the singular isolation of the US there, shows that this stance is heavily backfiring, damaging the long term interests of the US.

   IP plays a very prominent role in both contexts: as it is a privileged tool for appropriating and controlling codified knowledge, it strongly influences structure and intensity of power relations, now at a global scale. Thus, its rules and balance should not be subject to particular interests, but should be designed to fit and support the grand design of global US policy and aspirations (if there is such a thing !).

   So, dear candidate, don’t let the diverse lobbies highjack a matter of vital importance to the US strategic interests !

   Reply

3. David Kane says

   05/02/2008 at 10:39 pm

   We need to use other methods to reward ingenuity. Patents are the most inefficient tool to do this. Dennis Kucinich, among others, has a concrete proposal that would encourage innovation without giving monopoly powers to the innovators. The Center for Economic Policy Research (CEPR.net) has a couple good surveys of the many alternatives to patents and copyrights.

   Hopefully our next president will lead the way to explore these alternatives, though with the way that most of the candidates are in the pockets of Big Pharma, I doubt it…

   Reply