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

BY Matt Schruers
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

Supreme Court Decides Landmark Google v. Oracle Case On Copyright, Interoperable Tech Products

Apr 5, 2021

Washington — The Supreme Court has issued its ruling in the Google v. Oracle copyright case, which has been litigated for more than a decade. The outcome, which has sweeping implications for the tech industry, means the reuse of certain program elements necessary for interoperability is fair use and not an infringement of copyright law.…

CCIA, Industry Groups File Complaint Against Maryland Digital Tax

Feb 18, 2021

Washington — The Computer & Communications Industry Association and a coalition of trade associations joined in filing a federal complaint against Maryland’s recent Act imposing a “Digital Advertising Gross Revenues Tax”, aimed at technology companies. The Act attempts to collect an estimated $250 million from a small number of companies in the first year, according…

Unvetted Copyright Measures In Spending Bill Concern CCIA

Dec 22, 2020

Washington — Congress has wrapped several controversial copyright measures into a must-pass end of the year spending bill.  The intellectual property part of the legislation includes the CASE Act, the Trademark Modernization Act, and the Protecting Lawful Streaming Act. While the Computer & Communications Industry Association doesn’t oppose the language of the streaming proposal, it…