Many stakeholders are increasing pushing for more relaxation of intellectual property rights. The common argument among these stakeholders is that relaxing the intellectual property rights, as well as corporate knowledge on intellect and knowledge, will be in the society’s best interests. This argument has been dismissed by many of the current content intellectual owners who desire or want to maintain their ascendancy and resist sharing out the intellectual property which is in many cases their main power source. There is however some little bit of evidence that seems to suggest that the relaxation of property rights monopolies may be misguided and harmful in the long run. There is a great between those who are in favor of weakening the current protection rights and those who are in favor of strengthening them. However, one point of agreement between the two parties is that a balance needs to be created when it comes to intellectual property rights. This is a balance between ensuring the provision of sufficient incentive for the creation of new products and the freedom to utilize the currently existing ideas (Boldrin & Levine, 2003).
In simple terms, intellectual property rights is viewed as a necessary kind of evil that fosters and nurtures innovation. The main disagreement has however been on where this line should be drawn. For those who support stricter intellectual property rights, the argument is that the current monopoly profits are not enough (Boldrin & Levine, 2003). For those who advocate for the intellectual property rights to be more flexible, the existing monopoly profits are way too high.
However, in trying to figure out the way forward on how to reform the current property rights so that they can fit with the best interests of the society, the issue of profits should not feature much (Boldrin & Levine, 2003). This is because the presence of huge profits in business or the lack of them can easily be attributed to other factors other than intellectual property rights. In addition, the appropriate number of profits required for a certain line of business is not always obvious (Boldrin & Levine, 2003).
Moreover, the manner in which a particular allocation of property rights should be beneficial or socially damaging often has very little to do with the amount or levels of profits that a business obtains when operating in a certain industry (Boldrin & Levine, 2003). With all this in mind, one thing is clear, the current intellectual property rights are no longer working in the best interest of the society, and this is indeed the best time for reforms to be instituted. These reforms should be directed towards relaxing the current IPR rights so as to create a balance between the incentive to create new ideas and the freedom to use already existing ideas.
There needs to be a complete overhaul of the current intellectual property rights system. The progressive expansion of these rights over the years has spurred innovation and creation of new products but over time, patent laws that are part of intellectual property rights have started to overlap. These days, it is not just products that are protected by intellectual property rights, but parts of products are also being protected by these rights. This has inadvertently led to a lot of overlapping, and this is what is creating tension and conflict between manufacturers of similar brands (Branstetter et al., 2011).
Unfortunately as it has been shown, the party who suffers from all this is the consumer, and this is why there is a need to reform the current intellectual property rights.The reform should include an aspect that clearly defines what can be protected and cannot be protected. There are obviously some unique things that when created by a given individual or a given corporation deserve to be protected to ensure that the creator enjoys full benefits. After all, it is the anticipation of benefits to the individual that encourages the innovation, design and creation of unique products. Reforms of intellectual property rights should also give explicit directions and guidelines on how the exact requirements that a certain product should meet for it to be patented or protected (Fink & Maskus, 2005).
When it comes to parts of similar products that in recent years have been the greatest source of conflict, there is also a great need for reforms. Each industry needs to have a particular brand of reformed intellectual property rights. This is especially in the technological industry which is the greatest source of conflicts related to intellectual property rights (Besen & Raskind, 1991). The last two decades have witnessed an unprecedented technological advent throughout the world. Technological advancements are being made on a daily basis, and these are likely to pick up even more pace in the future.
Ultimately technology advent does not benefit the producer of technology element but also benefits the final consumer. The producer benefits from sales of a unique technological element while the consumer benefits from the utility offered by the technology which they have purchased. Unfortunately, technological advent is under threat from the current expansive intellectual property rights (Branstetter et al., 2011).
The intellectual gap between different inventions has grown so tight and with no adjustment being made to the current intellectual property rights and this has created a huge conflict (Besen & Raskind, 1991). Companies are taking each other to court on a daily basis claiming infringement of intellectual property rights. The recent case between Apple and Samsung, two of the world’s largest electronic gadgets manufacturers brought out the ugly side of intellectual property rights. It exposed just how close the gap of the intellect used in invention has grown and how a lack of reforms to the intellectual property rights is threatening future inventions.
When one party takes another to court claiming infringement of IPR rights and wins, the second company is curtailed from advancing with a particular projects that it, for example, had already started. This project could have given rise to another new project or another invention that could have been of greater benefit than the first one or that could have revolutionized mankind and humanity (Branstetter et al., 2011). Such is the great disadvantage posed by the current intellectual property rights. Their ambiguity is simply too much and consequently, they pose a greater danger to the development of products that even if created using a previously existing idea would inadvertently be of greater benefit to the entire society and not just to the original corporation that came up with the idea initially. This is where there needs to be a reform of the current intellectual property rights.
As it was mentioned earlier, one cannot deny that intellectual property rights are meant to encourage the innovation and invention of brand new and unique products. However, there needs to be a balance between the incentive to create or come up with brand new ideas and the freedom to utilize already existing ideas. This is the only way the world will be able to progress positively, and the society shall benefit as a whole.
The biggest opponents to the reformation of property rights have been firms that currently enjoy a monopoly over other firms. It is understandable why these companies would take such a stand. According to Gilbert and Newberry (1982), a firm that currently enjoys monopoly has the incentive to maintain this monopoly by patenting or protecting its new technologies before potential competitors and this can often lead to patents that are not used or licensed to others. In many instances, the motivation behind seeking for patents is profits and money. The general interest of the public barely features in such endeavors. This is one of the other major reasons why there is a need for the current intellectual property rights to undergo reforms.
If the existing IPR rights continue being motivated by THE issue of profits, the consumer IS likely to continue suffering. The above situation has mentioned how some companies enjoying monopoly usually run to the issuers of patents to claim for patents on new technologies and then sit on those patents without necessarily developing the technologies. These patents have gained the fitting name of “sleeping patents” (Gilbert & Newbery, 1982). This is another classic example of why immediate reforms in the intellectual property rights agenda is needed. Companies enjoying monopoly simply patent technologies not because they want to develop them but because they want to prevent competitors from developing these technologies and potentially gaining a larger market share therefore interfering with the monopoly previously enjoyed by the first company.
Such moves are obviously not in the best long-term interest of the society, the society deserves the best and unique products and if a certain corporation has the ability to provide this, then it should not be limited due to the fact that another corporation had obtained a patent for a particular brand of technology that it does not even plan to exploit (Fink & Maskus, 2005). A company should not be granted a patent if does not articulate or provide clear guidelines on how it plans to exploit a certain line of technology as well as an explanation of how this new technology will be of benefit to the greater community in the long run. In fact, this should be one of the primary elements of the intellectual property reforms. A company or an individual should not be granted patents to a particular technology if this technology can be exploited for the greater good of the society if one does not provide a clear explicit plan of how they plan to go about this exploitations (Fink & Maskus, 2005).Products that have been patented in the past and that are currently “sleeping” should immediately undergo review.
Conclusion
References
Branstetter, L., Fisman, R., Foley, C. F., & Saggi, K. (2011). Does intellectual property rights reform spur industrial development? Journal of International Economics, 83(1), 27-36.
Besen, S. M., & Raskind, L. J. (1991). An introduction to the law and economics of intellectual property. The Journal of Economic Perspectives, 3-27.
Boldrin, M., & Levine, D. K. (2013). What's Intellectual Property Good for? Revue économique, 64(1), 29-53.
Fink, C., & Maskus, K. E. (Eds.). (2005). Intellectual property and development: lessons from recent economic research. World Bank Publications.
Gilbert, R. J., & Newbery, D. M. (1982). Preemptive patenting and the persistence of monopoly. The American Economic Review, 514-526.
