I bristle at the debate on patents and copyrights. On the one hand, I understand and agree with the fundamental idea: A man should be compensated for his ideas. But then when we bring on concepts like Patent Transfers and Intellectual Property as a commodity, I jump right off that bandwagon.
With those comes a different message, one that I’m not entirely down with, for what they imply switches the subject: Instead of when a man creates he should be compensated, it becomes in order to drive a man to create there must be a system of compensation, and that boggles the mind. Namely, should the primary motive for creation and innovation be a future monetary cash-in?
In what field other than finance is that not utterly destructive? Art? Art becomes diluted to entertainment, where the end goal isn’t self-expression but selling the largest number of units at the highest price. Where the lowest common denominator becomes the pinnacle of the craft. Where people listen to pop because it’s what’s always playing and counter-culturalists listen to the obscure because it isn’t pop (until it is pop, at which point they stop listening) and beyond that nobody cares what they’re listening to.
Medicine? Medicine gets diluted to pharmaceuticals, where the end goal isn’t to provide the most benefit to the patient but, again, to create a monopoly on commercially viable finds: Eradicate malaria? Pff, poor countries can’t afford that. Let’s invent another injection that makes movie stars’ faces look more photogenic and less real.
Industry? Three words: The Electric Car.
Perhaps I don’t have my finger on society, but it bothers me deeply when the basis of such property laws are perverted to the point where the very desire to create can only be explained in one manner.