Keep the Innovation And What Really Creates It In Mind On World Intellectual Property Day

BY CCIA Staff
April 26, 2011

In 2000, the World Intellectual Property Organization designated today, April 26, as World Intellectual Property Day, as it is the date on which the 1970 WIPO Convention entering into force.  This date serves as an occasion to raise awareness about and celebrate intellectual property.

Choosing the date of the establishment of an inter-governmental bureaucracy as the anniversary to celebrate reflects peculiar priorities. (April 26 also has the dubious distinction of being the anniversary of the Chernobyl catastrophe, so the date has its baggage in any event.)  Celebrating WIPO rather than authorship or invention elevates the regulatory apparatus constructed to incentivize creativity, rather than lionizing the actual creative act itself.  It reflects a top-down perspective, whereas creativity generally occurs from the bottom-up.  Governments don’t produce innovation; people do.

Nor is celebrating the notion of intellectual property the same as celebrating creativity, authorship, or innovation.  Not all creative activity is motivated by exclusive rights, and not all rightsholders are necessarily interested in promoting innovation.  Indeed, a recent article by Harvard scholar James Allworth in the Harvard Business Review, provocatively titled, “Big Content Is Strangling American Innovation” criticizes a variety of recent IP enforcement strategies sought by rightholders on the grounds that they will undermine American innovation.  Controversial strategies such asdomain name seizure, are ineffective, counterproductive, and bad for new businesses, Allworth suggests, since the next YouTube may incorporate overseas so as not to risk “having the government simply switch off your site at the behest of Big Content.”

Allworth also points out that giving up on aggressive but ineffective enforcement might in fact aid rightsholder constituencies by compelling them to address the market failure of infringement, rather than petitioning law enforcement to do it for them.  Here Allworth echoes an insightful 2009 Ars Technica article and a brief filed earlier this month by the Consumer Electronics Association in the Viacom v. YouTube case, both of which recount how content industries have decried tech innovation as piracy for over a century, only to adapt and profit after policymakers ignored their special pleading.

Sometimes the right solution to a technological advance is more protection for IP, but often restricting technology to suit outmoded business models does more harm than good.  This fact is easily forgotten when we celebrate intellectual property – a means to an end – instead of the end itself – progress.

Related Articles

Fireside Chat With Hal Varian: Antitrust Bills Would Harm Tech Market, Consumers

May 24, 2022

Washington – A recent fireside chat with Google’s Chief Economist Hal Varian featured discussion on the flawed reasoning behind proposed tech regulations in antitrust bills like S. 2992, H.R. 3825, and H.R. 3826. Together with the Computer & Communications Industry Association’s Director of Research and Economics Trevor Wagener, Hal Varian countered arguments supporting the proposed…

CCIA, 31 Other Organizations, Scholars Ask Congress To Oppose Controversial Copyright Proposal, Tech Mandates

Mar 29, 2022

Washington – The Computer & Communications Industry Association, along with 31 other civil society groups, academics, associations, and companies sent a letter expressing their concerns about legislation that would put the government in charge of creating technical standards and undermine the balance in current law that protects both copyright and innovation, known as the Digital…

Economic Study Finds Congressional Antitrust Bills to Cost Consumers, Business Users $319 Billion

Mar 22, 2022

Washington — A comprehensive economic study by National Economic Research Associates (NERA) finds that proposed antitrust legislation in Congress could cost the economy $319 billion. The result would be increased costs and loss of services for consumers, small businesses and other users of the bills’ target companies — Google, Facebook, Apple, Microsoft and Amazon.  The…