are intellectual property rights justified?

Question

I have a discussion on whether intellectual property rights should be approved.
where can I find good information.

Answer 1

Intellectual property right is justified for several reasons. Yet analysing the reasons to justify property right apparently are profit driven reasons.

The main rational behind intellectual property right is the preservation of motivational factors for these inventors, entrepreneurs etc. to innovate and continue to improve the quality of their products. Once intellectual property rights are not granted, these aforesaid people will find no reason to innovate. They'll just rely on copying newly invented products. Moreover, intellectual property right aims to protect the owner of the idea being implemented. Say for instance, a biochemist who happen to find a cure for Aids will be granted property rights. Hence, he can regulate the production of the drug and certainly receives a percentage of the profit.

These among others are the reasons to justify intellectual property rights but to some extent these reasons discounts the fact that intellectual property rights obfuscate potential maximisation of these inventions. Because royalties and incentives are given to the owner of the idea, companies making these invented products will have to increase the product's price so as to cover for the pay given to the inventors. While it is true that these are necessary evil, it is unfortunate that affects the consumers of these goods and services. And since, IPR extends even to basic necessities (i.e. medicines), the marginalised member of the society gets to suffer.

You can go to www.debatabase.com and open the issues concerning IPR. I hope I was of help to you.

Answer 2

I am not familiar with this subject, but its an interesting question. Inventions--that is, things which can be put to use can be patented, but there is (are?) no such thing as intellectual property rights as such, I would not think. Ideas are just that--properties of one's intellect unless and until they can be applied. No one can own anothers mind, torture methods to the contrary. Ideas cannot be claimed or owned unless expressed. They would also need to be evaluated, but this could be done by someone as intellectual and talented as Mozart, Shakespeare, Einstein or Feynmann, etc. prior to being shared with others. You are really making me think, but its only 3:20 am here, so I'm hardly at my sharpest--LOL!

Answer 3

get good info from sites which are the main culprits for violating property rights such as ebay and music download sites. In my opinion they are good but should only apply for a certain number of years 5-10.

Answer 4

It relies upon on what you desire. in case you prefer to be an artist or scientist, they don't look to be justified. in case you prefer to be a dealer or crafstman, they are. it is approximately your point of humanity. as an occasion, in case you are able to charge copyright for a tale you wrote, you at the instant are not an artist yet a businessman. Or take Einstein as an occasion: he did not invent the thought of relativity to make money on it. He in no way claimed sources rights for it. Do you think of he replaced into stupid? Or smart? it definitely relies upon on your answer.

Answer 5

One of the first known references to intellectual property protection dates from 500 B.C.E., when chefs in the Greek colony of Sybaris were granted year-long monopolies for creating particular culinary delights. There are at least three other notable references to intellectual property in ancient times—these cases are cited in Bruce Bugbee's formidable work The Genesis of American Patent and Copyright Law (Bugbee 1967). In the first case, Vitruvius (257–180 B.C.E.) is said to have revealed intellectual property theft during a literary contest in Alexandria. While serving as judge in the contest, Vitruvius exposed the false poets who were then tried, convicted, and disgraced for stealing the words and phrases of others.

The second and third cases also come from Roman times (first century C.E.). Although there is no known Roman law protecting intellectual property, Roman jurists did discuss the different ownership interests associated with an intellectual work and how the work was codified—e.g., the ownership of a painting and the ownership of a table upon which the painting appears. There is also reference to literary piracy by the Roman epigrammatist Martial. In this case, Fidentinus is caught reciting the works of Martial without citing the source.

These examples are generally thought to be atypical; as far as we know, there were no institutions or conventions of intellectual property protection in Ancient Greece or Rome. From Roman times to the birth of the Florentine Republic, however, there were many franchises, privileges, and royal favors granted surrounding the rights to intellectual works. Bugbee distinguishes between franchises or royal favors and systems of intellectual property in the following way: franchises and royal favors restrict access to intellectual works already in the public domain, thus these decrees take something from the people. An inventor, on the other hand, deprives the public of nothing that existed prior to the act of invention (Bugbee 1967). One of the first statutes that protected authors' rights was issued by the Republic of Florence on June 19, 1421, to Filippo Brunelleschi, a famous architect. This statute not only recognized the rights of authors and inventors to the products of their intellectual efforts; it built in an incentive mechanism that became a prominent feature of Anglo-American intellectual property protection. For several reasons, including Guild influence, the Florentine patent statute of 1421 issued only the single patent to Brunelleschi. The basis of the first lasting patent institution of intellectual property protection is found in a 1474 statute of the Venetian Republic. This statute appeared 150 years before England's Statute of Monopolies; moreover, the system was sophisticated. The rights of inventors were recognized, an incentive mechanism was included, compensation for infringement was established, and a term limit on inventors' rights was imposed.

American institutions of intellectual property protection are based on the English system that began with the Statute of Monopolies (1624) and the Statute of Anne (1710). The Statute of Monopolies granted fourteen-year monopolies to authors and inventors and ended the practice of granting rights to “non-original/new” ideas or works already in the public domain. In contrast to patent institutions in Europe, literary works remained largely unprotected until the arrival of Gutenberg's printing press in the fifteenth century. Even then there were few true copyrights granted—most were grants, privileges, and monopolies.

The Statute of Anne (1710) is considered by scholars to be the first statute of modern copyright. The statute begins:

“Whereas printers, booksellers, and other persons have lately frequently taken the liberty of printing, reprinting, and publishing books without the consent of the authors and proprietors … to their very great detriment, and too often to the ruin of them and their families: for preventing therefore such practices for the future, and for the encouragement of learned men to compose and write use books, be it enacted …” (Great Britain, Statute of Anne, 1710)

The law gave protection to the author by granting fourteen-year copyrights, with a fourteen-year renewal possible if the author was still alive.

In the landmark English case Miller v. Taylor (1769), the inherent rights of authors to control what they produce, independent of statute or law, was affirmed. While this case was later overruled in Donaldson v. Becket (1774), the practice of recognizing the rights of authors had begun. Other European countries, including Belgium, Holland, Italy, and Switzerland, followed the example set by England (Bugbee, 1967). Various more recent international treaties like the Berne Convention treaty and the TRIPS agreement have expanded the geographic scope of intellectual property protection to include most of the globe (Moore 2001)........Property Management Bendigo