1 post tagged “ip”

(First posted on Bloglines in November 2004)

The debate over Google Book Search is very interesting. Lessig's arguments are persuasive.

The thing that struck me most about how the publishers would like the world to work was the idea of “potential markets”. IP owners would have the right of veto over any and all potential markets that make any use of their IP.

I would have liked to hear more analysis of the flow on effects of such a system. Some thoughts:

1. Most IP is owned by incumbents.
2. Radically disruptive ideas will generally not come from incumbents who like things the way they are.
3. Giving a veto power to the people who like things the way they are does not allow room for the next big idea.

I think this argument was put forward by Lessig, but not adequately addressed by the publishers. One speaker glibly noted that people were developing creative works before Google and will continue to do so regardless, and so there is no need to worry about this issue.

However this answer does not engage with the fact that the very role of IP regulation is to strike a balance that maximises the creative output of a society. I’m not sure how giving a veto over new ideas to groups who enjoy the status quo helps that aim.

Update 25th July 2006:

I'm interested in how competition law would address these issues in Europe post Magill. That case interpreted Article 82 of the Statute of Rome. It held that a refusal to licence IP could be an unlawful use of market power.

Lessig has since posted a video which explains the arguments behind the Google Book Search debate. It is included in this post.