A common theme in science fiction literature and movies is technology run wild. The machines take over, bioweapons researchers accidentally release an engineered virus into the population, or nano-sized machines suddenly develop intelligence and start malevolently chewing through the biosphere, leaving a sea of “grey goo” in their wake.
There’s just enough of a nugget of truth in the setup of these dramas to make them remotely believable. But that’s where science fiction doomsday scenarios depart from human experience. The fact is that innovation and technology have led to the creation of wealth, better health, greater access to knowledge, and thus overall greater quality of life.
But there are still parts of the world that innovation hasn’t reached—where people don’t have access to clean water, adequate health care, basic energy and educational resources. The disparity is glaring, and troubling to people of conscience, some of whom have unfortunately misdiagnosed the problem.
A doctrine has taken root in some parts of the world, and among some activist organizations, that the wealthier nations of the world have intentionally restricted access to innovations and its benefits through the intellectual property system, which grants property rights through patents and copyright.
Intellectual property rights specifically facilitate the creation, exchange and distribution of knowledge goods. In return for those benefits to society, the patent keeps others from stealing the patented invention. The alternative to patents is trade secrets, which specifically restrict access to knowledge and thus don’t deliver the same societal benefits.
The problem of access to knowledge goods isn’t property rights—it’s poverty. Attacking the intellectual property system is a dangerous distraction which threatens to kill the goose that lays the golden eggs of innovation.
But that’s exactly what is in the cards this December as the nations of the world meet in Copenhagen to discuss a new international system for addressing climate change. Central to the effort, and in the name of benefitting developing nations, will be calls to weaken patent protection on anything deemed “green technology” that can address climate concerns.
Wise negotiators will not confuse and conflate the problem (how to pay for innovations) and the solution (the property rights innovation system), and will resist calls to weaken the intellectual property system. With innovation as the engine of ongoing prosperity, going wobbly on innovation is never a good idea.