Intellectual Property has always seemed a pretty philosopical topic to me-- rife with debate (even exciting debate) but never ever cut and dried. I tend to like everything to be easy, neat and orderly. It's easiest for me to understand things that way.
This week's readings confirmed for me how messy IP is. How simple it could have been (Thomas Jefferson's ideas) and how complex the marketplace has required it be. The readings reminded me that I recalled hearing that congress had created a position for an IP 'czar' recently (turns out last year). I did a little googling on recent goings on in US IP and found this and this. It seems the topic is even messier than I thought.
From the WSJ Article: The intellectual property coordinator, part of the Office of Management and Budget, is mandated as part of a law aimed at beefing up U.S. enforcement efforts to stop the sale of pirated or counterfeited movies, music, drugs and software.
No mention of protecting non saleable 'items' like ideas or research leads me to believe we're only truly interested in this position to police the industries that can afford lobbyists. Movies, Music, Drugs & Software. While books and textbooks are saleable, they aren't named.
This seems like a topic where no one is getting it right. I find it overwhelming. Is this woman's new job a waste of tax payer money? Any alternatives? Could leaving the burden of protection on the owner work? Or could it ruin our society?
Yeah, copyright and intellectual property is anything but neat and orderly.
One thing that is pretty cut and dry is that ideas are not protected under IP. All IP is designed to protect the physical manifestation of ideas not ideas themselves. Well, at least that's the theory behind it, patent law in the past 10 years has made a mess out of that... but that's why I refuse to touch patent law and leave it up to those who decided to kill themselves and get a law degree with a focus on patents.