MrSchnapps wrote the following post at Tue, Oct 19 2010 12:57 AM:
Thanks for asking intelligent and legitimate questions.
I wasn’t really planning to introduce more concepts into this melting pot of confused arguments here at Mises.org but I will give it a shot, since you seem to be quite genuinely interested in discussing these issues. My example about private entrepreneurs were not so much an example of IP (as someone pointed out) as to a clearcut example of how it IS legitimate for private enterprise to make money off of creating a state (which does involve intellectual work, e.g. producing a law). But in most cases this is not how states are created. They usually already exist with people already living there. Is it legitimate to impose a royalty on the people living there for the innovation of creating the state? No, that’s not an appropriate way of doing it, especially since there are so many viable alternatives. One existing option is through simple copyright. John Locke published his book “Treatise on civil government,” and although I don’t think this book was copyrighted (and that copyright wasn’t really an issue back then) he was still able to make some money off of his intellectual work through sales of the book.
But clearly in my view this is too limited a means of making money off of great intellectual work. Therefore I am working on enhancing IP with a new concept altogether which I call Academic Property. I conceived of this in a different context (during debates on the availability of climate data and the peer review process) but the concept applies broadly. I operate with different kinds of academic property rights:
- scientific data
- discoveries
- ideas (scientific theories, algorithms, inventions)
Although they are implemented slightly differently, they all have a common theme: USE is unrestricted and in the open domain. However, the owner can demand royalties from PUBLICATIONS. In this sense, this property right is the exact opposite of patents, and in my view it solves all the problems of patents. Patents still have their use, but I think that this type of property right will be far more popular than patents, and the preferred type of property in most cases. Notice that although academic property resembles copyright there are no restrictions on copying and distribution. Academic property is not an exclusive distribution right as copyright is. The way it works is this: whenever someone PUBLICIZES something using the above mentioned academic property, they pay a royalty to the owner, for that publication. Let’s look at the subtle differences between these three types of property.
- scientific data
Academic property of scientific data means that anyone can use a data set in a scientific paper, but they have to pay a royalty for the data when the paper is published. The owner of scientific data owns the data, BUT NOT THE SOURCE. This means that if someone wants to map the human genome, then they are free to get academic property rights to that specific genome data, but someone else can go to the same genome and map it out and ALSO acquire academic property rights to THEIR version of the genome data, even if they are identical. (They have to document that they actually have done the work of mapping out the genome). In this way many different data sets of the same source may coexist. This type of academic property right has a long life time since anyone can go back to the original source and make their own data set.
- scientific discoveries
Unlike scientific data, scientific discoveries can only be made once, and hence the academic ownership of scientific discoveries is EXCLUSIVE. No-one else can acquire discovery rights to a particular discovery other than the first one who registers it. Like patents the novelty of discoveries wane quickly and therefore discovery rights should have approximately the same lifetime as patents, about 20 years. It is also quite possible that discovery rights have an initial “novelty” phase of perhaps one year, where slightly different rules apply when the discovery is totally unknown to all. Discovery of life on Mars could be an example of such a discovery right. This is a major news story, and if this discovery was reported, say, 1 billion times in the news and the royalty was 25 cents per publication, then the discovery would generate 250 million dollars in revenue to the discoverer. Less news-flashy, but equally important is the discovery of new genes. This is different from scientifc data property, because that is only a protection of the data itself, and does not include the meaning of that data. If someone discovers a gene that codes for, say, diabetes, then he can get an academic discovery right to it, and all scientific publications in the next 20 years or so that reference it or use it will have to pay royalties. This solves the problem of biotech companies patenting genes. Patents are obviously not appropriate for that and should never be used for discoveries. Discovery rights only pertains to discoveries, not to inventions.
- Ideas (scientific theories, algorithms, inventions)
Any article can be academically property protected. What one needs to do then is to follow the due dilligence process of a scientific paper (making appropriate references to the litterature etc.) and then register it. By so doing you are also becoming part of the academic property network of royalties. YOU have to pay royalties to scientific references you make to other academically protected papers, and you will also receive royalties when you are referenced. This includes publication outlets at large (newspapers, magazines, school books etc.) but not private conversation and informal publications such as blogs. Basically then you are putting your ideas out there and everyone is free to USE them and there are no restrictions on who can reference, copy and publicize your work as long as it is credited and that you receive royalty. This is a great alternative to patents for most inventors. They don’t have to actually implement and sell their invention in order to make money off of it. It suffices that it is talked about. In this way, important inventions, scientific theories, algorithms etc. get their due credit, not just academically but also economically.
I think it would be appropriate for innovators of law to acquire academic property rights to their advances, and when states use these innovations in the law the states have to pay royalties (just like states have to pay for guns or cars). Notice that this separates the question of WHO gets the money and HOW they are collected. A state SHOULD be financed voluntarily by donations, not by taxes, and the royalties to the philosophical and legal innovators are just part of the cost of running the state. So even if the royalties are legally required, it does not imply the use of force on its citizens since the state is financed voluntarily.
Notice however, that although some last longer than others no academic property rights last forever for the reason discussed previously: information does not exist independently of the mind and it requires mental work to animate it and process it. Therefore with time as the information is diffused through the culture the information becomes more and more mixed with the mental work of others than the originator and therefore the rights have an expiry date. This is especially true for innovations, discoveries, theories and inventions.