Like what you've read?

On Line Opinion is the only Australian site where you get all sides of the story. We don't
charge, but we need your support. Here’s how you can help.

  • Advertise

    We have a monthly audience of 70,000 and advertising packages from $200 a month.

  • Volunteer

    We always need commissioning editors and sub-editors.

  • Contribute

    Got something to say? Submit an essay.


 The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
On Line Opinion logo ON LINE OPINION - Australia's e-journal of social and political debate

Subscribe!
Subscribe





On Line Opinion is a not-for-profit publication and relies on the generosity of its sponsors, editors and contributors. If you would like to help, contact us.
___________

Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Lawyers expand their monopoly

By Nicholas Gruen - posted Monday, 18 August 2008


As Mark Twain said, "It ain't what you don't know that gets you into trouble. It's what you know for sure that just ain't so."

Our biggest mistakes often come when we’re most untroubled by our logic - even when it's wrong! For decades we've been applying this syllogism: Intellectual property (IP) stimulates innovation and creativity. Therefore, stronger IP generates more.

We might know it for sure, but surprisingly often, it just ain't so.

Advertisement

Given its costs to consumers, stronger intellectual property protection is only worthwhile where it encourages IP production that would not otherwise have occurred.

Yet we've often strengthened protection for IP that's already in existence. For instance we've lengthened the period of protection retrospectively.

  • Like when we agreed with all the other intellectual property importers in the world - that's pretty much everyone except the US - to retrospectively extend patent terms from 16 to 20 years.
  • Like when we negotiated the Australia US Free Trade Agreement to extend copyright protection for an additional 20 years. The pre-WWI song Happy Birthday finally escaped Australian copyright in 1997 - but back it went. Happy birthday indeed.

It hasn't just been the US's trade negotiating muscle driving this lurch towards IP mercantilism.From the early 1980s, judges around the world somehow caught the zeitgeist.Intellectual property came to be seen as such a Good Thing that well reasoned judicial taboos on patenting software and business methods and various doctrines which stood in the way of patenting the obvious were whittled away.

The result? Today we have people successfully patenting garden swings and toast!  Litigation on software patents is four times more likely than chemical patents; business methods patents 12 times more likely; finance patents 49 times more likely.

But what's ultimately much more serious are road blocks preventing further innovation. Along with this is massive uncertainty as software developers must now use lawyers as minesweepers as they negotiate the patent thicket before them - at hundreds of dollars an hour.

Advertisement

Last week the lawyers struck again! The Copyright Agency Limited (CAL) collects royalties for copyright owners. Over the last decade they've driven up their royalties from around $7 million to $50 million per year.

A lot of this money comes from the penurious education sector, and given that quite a bit of the content on which CAL earns royalties is generated by those on the public purse, a simple public subsidy to content creation would get more money through to creators.And see more creation.

CAL is still broadening its horizons. It's seeking royalties from the NSW Government whenever it "republishes" the surveyor's plans of your housing block. These documents have already been created, often decades ago, by surveyors paid by the original developer of the block.They have been deposited on the public record and so are available for free distribution.

  1. Pages:
  2. Page 1
  3. 2
  4. All

First published in the Australian Financial Review on 12 August, 2008



Discuss in our Forums

See what other readers are saying about this article!

Click here to read & post comments.

3 posts so far.

Share this:
reddit this reddit thisbookmark with del.icio.us Del.icio.usdigg thisseed newsvineSeed NewsvineStumbleUpon StumbleUponsubmit to propellerkwoff it

About the Author

Dr Nicholas Gruen is CEO of Lateral Economics and Chairman of Peach Refund Mortgage Broker. He is working on a book entitled Reimagining Economic Reform.

Other articles by this Author

All articles by Nicholas Gruen

Creative Commons LicenseThis work is licensed under a Creative Commons License.

Photo of Nicholas Gruen
Article Tools
Comment 3 comments
Print Printable version
Subscribe Subscribe
Email Email a friend
Advertisement

About Us Search Discuss Feedback Legals Privacy