Beyond the difficulties in obtaining investment, in achieving results, if those have a rpductive industrial edge the posibility of infringment by a third party is a reality. It the inventor is an academic researcher, or a small company ; and the third party is a poweful multinational, the chances of defense are slim. In some countries there is Patent /IP insurance to help....

http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2336438

We are not clear as to what is "unsafe." Charges of infringement against university researchers are rare. "Stolen" inventions yield invalid patents so this too is rare.

Obtaining patents requires an invention and money. The first part is easier to come by. Individual researchers seldom have the funds for patenting. That is why university technology transfer offices (with budgets) are an absolute necessity. Given the money -- and even given the patent -- selling technology is difficult. It is usually beyond the skill of researchers/inventors. Here too a technology transfer office is critical.

Barry's question is very important. Many searchers and academics have no experienceof IP rights. I dont know if there is anywhere a "safe" Environment?

The IP rights owner has to protect him self his property and create his safe environment. First of all he has to be careful of the content of his recrutement agreement, and inspect himself if his rights are not stolen.

If you have not read it, I recommend you Howard B. Rockman book on Intellectual Poperty. That's a very good reference.

regards,

Ahmed

Since you are all scientists or academics, supposedly, you are also supposed to analyze what you talk about before stating opinions and drawing conclusions.

How do you know that IP (whether copyright or patents or other) is desirable for anyone or socially useful ? It may be. But the usefulness or noxiousness may depend on very many parameters (field, innovation speed, source of financing, research investment cost, production fixed costs, marginal production cost, complexity of final products, social effects of restricted use, publication delays. ...) and there is also the issue of who it is useful for (scientist, research group, company, country, mankind, for better research and innovation, for more or for less competitive industry ...). Some patents have been used to prevent competitive research (Myriad Genetics patents on cancer prevention). The USA Supreme Court is currently working on reducing the scope of the patent system.

The effects of IP systems is very poorly understood, and constantly evolving. IP is very much a matter of ideology, often a poor excuse for racket, sometimes very useful.

How can you discuss the protection of IP when you do not even address the issue of whether, why, when, where, how, at what cost you would would want to protect it? Not even the issue of what type of IP? Contrary to popular belief, the role of patents is at least as much (probably more) to protect production investment than to protect the work of the inventive creator. As the evolution of technology reduces or cancels the need for production investment, it is questionnable whether the patent system is still profitable (to whom). Do not forget that IP reduces the usefulness of creative work by limiting the number of people who can benefit from it (what Steven Harnad calls the faustian pact). The same is true of copyright. Typically, the most useful IP is trademark, though it too can be abused. And it does matter in some research fields.

Regarding the advice and opinion of IP lawyers, never forget that they have a vested interest, and nothing to lose, in the development of IP. The net global effect of IP on the financial resources of industry and research is often negative : precisely because of the part that goes to IP lawyers, IP professionals and patent trolls. It could however be argued that, in some circumstances, IP may encourage globally more creation and innovation, hence fosters further resources. But this is highly dependent on the context (see above) and is, in my experience, hardly ever a concern of law professionals.

Another issue is that developing IP in publicly funded research may result into a social and/or institutional bias that will encourage applied research and short term innovation at the expense of long term fundamental research, less likely to provide IP income. That is pretty much feeding on the seeds for the next crop.

Answer to Ismael Arinas:

When trying to understand issues, you have to assign costs to the activity that created them. Typically, research costs can be incurred by people who will not be involved in production. Similarly, if there is no IP, or if it is expired, there may be production with no research. Actually, this applies as well to copyright (creation vs edition is the counterpart of R&D vs production). Some costs may disappear as a result of technology, and some may be covered by third parties who can afford it, who will do the work for free, or who can cover it with another activity (two-sided markets).

This text is under a Creative Commons CC-by-sa licence from the author.

An open and sharing community is *entirely safe* to release your knowledge and inventions and development within, since it stays free for all to share. The only way knowledge (ideas, inventions, technologies) can be stolen if there is a universal sense, acceptance and embrace of exclusive ownership as an underlying framework that establishes and supports the idea of exclusive rights of access, use and profit.

Join the open, free and sharing communities that have been pioneered by scientists of the past, the Free Software and open access movements and leave behind those archaic ideas of exclusive ownership of ideas.

Alternatively, buy into the fear mongering of an "unsafe space" into which you must be careful to release *your* ideas without proper protection and, over time, sink to the level of lowest common denominator as the web of knowledge fractures.

While I have some sympathy for the concept of open access and a sharing community there are some serious practical limitations on this Utopian world. Scientific researchers are entitled to the fruits of their labour just as builders and artists are. Should bricklayers and plasterers build houses for free simply because there is a demand for them? Should artists and musicians not be paid for their work?

In my work I examine the work of scientists of the past. It is very funny how many of the scientific greats showed their humanity in the venal and often corrupt behaviour they engaged in. The world is indeed an unsafe place where you may very well need to protect your ideas.

Should artists get paid?

But how do they get paid?

Most of them don't get much, some few of them get a lot, but it is the media corporations the skim the cream. From all of them. While there are indeed many sharing communities in the world - from seeds to software - it is the question "should artists and musicians not be paid" that could be said to Utopian, because it rests on a non-existing state of affairs, and is misleading because it invokes an image of the starving artist (and at any rate they exist all the same *with* all kinds of intellectual property rights in place), and as such asking this kind of question does, with all due respect, not lead to any very good argument for intellectual property rights.

Intellectual property is an extension of private property relations with regards to tangible things that cannot solve the problems caused by the latter - which lead to the starving artist - and it destroys creativity. It is a business tool, not a paint brush and neither is it edible.

Now, that said, if you did want to argue for intellectual property rights to protect "ideas", then there is a clause in the bundle of rights known as copyright that is called "attribution" - and that is more or less all you need. Beyond attribution it is very sketchy territory for solid, sensible, logical, coherent - that is, intellectually honest - arguments for exclusive ownership. Beyond attribution you need power, political and economical power to consolidate your interest. Funny how they have just that, those who design the laws in the lobbies.

For the more elaborate alternative, see the GNU General Public License and - generally - the work of the free software movement. And curiously, while the "free property regime" of the free software movement does not fracture the web of knowledge, it does allow for business to unfold within the reality created by its pooling of the *free* social forces of production. It is big business. Yet it is free and shared.

On a conceptual level, the model has spun off all kinds of research in economics, psychology, management, social sciences and philosophy.

Utopian perhaps, but then welcome to nowhere! The future is now. And "...if you can't lend a hand..."

PS: That a famous scientist or some painter or film maker is an arsehole is hardly relevant, but it might just be another side-effect of a system of exclusive ownership that tends to favour - and be controlled by - -- yes, indeed, arseholes. Who gets the keys to the armouries and the laboratories? Again, this is not an argument for exclusive ownership, but against it.

PPS: Indeed, the world is an unsafe place and it is safer for me and my children - right here, right now - to drive them to school in an SUV, but unsafer for everyone else, unless they also have an SUV, preferably a bigger one.

PPS: For what it's worth, the solution to the unfolding of art - and building houses for that matter - has long since been described page up and page down under such labels as, variously, citizen wage or basic income. Creativity would explode. Give people access to land, fuel and building materials and permit the building of dwellings and who would lay bricks for money? Solves that problem, too.

We will have to agree to disagree here on a fundamental level. I am afraid private property is a universal concept in human affairs and apart from a few anomalies appears in all cultures, all societies and throughout recorded the history of humanity at least from the formation of sedentary societies. I can agree with you that we should perhaps change our ways and live in one big propertyless human family based on altruism but we will have some difficulty convincing several billion people to follow suit.

I appreciate that intellectual property is an extension of private property, indeed that is the whole point. We do not leave our cars, our houses and our books and computers for others to take and use at will. Why should we work hard and long on developing ideas to have someone else just come along and help themselves? I fear that in such a world we might all decide to just let someone else do the work and in such a world most would not bother.

There are two issues that are being badly mixed in this discussion regarding the output of scientific research: 1- the documents written by the researchers, and 2- the "ideas" that have been produced by that research and that might be patentable. I used quotes because ideas as such are not patentable, but only devices, new products, or techniques to achieve physical effects. The two issues lead to quite different discussions, pertaining respectively to copyright and to patents.

Research scientists may want to patent what they have created, while not desiring to claim any payment or protection for their ownership of copyrights on their writings, usually provided no one else will claim any rights (as publishers do). What is the fruit of the labour of research scientists?

Whether people want to claim copyright of rather favor open access is usually dependent on why they write. A journalist usually needs to be paid for his writing, A scientist is paid for his results and his fame, and will rather try to increase visibility of his work by removing obstacles to accessing his writings.

Historically, copyright was always claimed and enforced, because printed publishing was a costly investment that had to be amortized on sales. Digital publishing is much cheaper and now leaves the choice of enforcing copyright or not. Then each author has to address the issue of what he considers preferable. An sometimes the author's employer may have a say in the issue. In the case of publicly funded research, the employer is the taxpayer. He may consider that research is more productive, to everyone's benefit, when publications are freely accessible.

Regarding patents, issues may be similar. Historically, a patent is not a right but a privilege granted by the state (or king) to a private person. It may be as a reward (to encourage innovation) or simply be in the state interest. For example, a patent is a monopoly, and that may encourage people to invest to industrialize (into production) the patented subject, so that the results may benefit the economy. Without the monopoly, people might hesitate to take the risk. But should patent be protected by society when there is no production investment that will benefit society? What if there is no need for production investment?

This said, I have no ideology regarding the choices to be made. I only believe in the one thing that rules the world, including species evolution: thermodynamics, what is wasteful and what is energetically or economically effective. In the long run, thermodynamics always win. That is why I see publishing as a dead industry, let's say a zombie industry. Of course, solution have to be found to pay creators (scientists, artists, writers of all kinds, ...) for their work. But it is not at all clear that the old solutions based on copyright ownership are the most effective ones in the digital world. This has nothing to do with altruism.

Protection of private property may be a right. But what is private property, what can be private property, what should be private property, whether material or intellectual, is very variable in time and space. I recall that not very long ago, human beings could be, and some are still considered as such in some parts of the world. I know, for example, that there was "some difficulty convincing several [m]illion people" in southern USA "that we should perhaps change our ways and live in one big propertyless human family ". It was also hard to convince the French sea traders who made good business of it. Copyright was not a matter of property before the printing press, and may well cease to be one with the advent of the Internet.

Similarly, patents are a fairly recent invention, dating from the 16th century (from memory). Are patents a good idea? This, as I said previously, depends on a lot of parameters that are very variable. Should patents apply to objets produced privately with a 3D printer? That is an interesting issue for debate.

I certainly agree that, at least in our society as is, people should be paid for their work. However, once the invention is made, once the tooth is pulled, once the car is built, once the book is written, there is no longer work to be done. Should people still be paid for it? So saying that people should be paid for their work leaves much room for interpretation. We should be very careful when we compare the economies of industrial manufacturing, of services, or of intellectual creation. They are very different.

But to believe that we will stop creating simply because we do not get ownership of the creation is just ridiculous. Most researchers would do another job if they were in it only for the money. Most authors do not live from their writings. Only people who do not create can believe that creators are motivated by money and property, though they may be interested in that too. Creation is an urge, creation is fun, creation gives us a name and make us survive, and it is useful to boot. Research and creation are part of that quest for knowledge and understanding which haunts all of us.

As for trademarks, they are supposedly much older. The invention is attributed by some people to the prostitutes of ancient Athens and Alexandria. I suspect it must be even older. But that is another story.

The rising interest in IP and copyright certainly has its dark side. I have just dealt with a case where IP was being used dishonestly to prevent a perceived competitor from trading.

Not only was the disputed product not capable of being patented, or even subject to copyright because of its widespread and generic distribution it is doubtful if the claimant had any personal interest at all in it. Their only motive was in stopping someone else making a living.

Quite obviously that kind of abuse of IP is a moral wrong and legal and the law in the UK at least can be deployed effectively to stop it (as they just found out). I have recently however dealt with the opposite side of this coin too. Two researchers, one working on an innovative medical monitoring system and another on a new model for diagnostics found their work being 'claimed' by more senior colleagues without attribution. Something we would call plagiarism in another environment.

This seriously undermines incentive. It is not just a matter of being paid for inventions and ideas, recognition needs protection so that talented young researchers and inventors feel valued and incentivised to do more and better work.

Copyright and IP are indeed two edged swords and have been used for sinister purposes as well as righteous ones. As for the advent of the printing press, the most infamous use of copyright, in quite literally that sense of the word was used before its invention, particularly by the church. Medieval books were literally copied by hand in the scriptoria of many monasteries. That gave enormous control over the distribution of knowledge and made sure that only the 'right books' got copied. The 'wrong books', those that did not please the establishment disappeared into monastery libraries or worse still disappeared for ever in flames.

I agree that creation is inherent in us, is an urge and is fun. Even at my great age and well established cynicism I enjoy my job and obtain reward from seeing positive results. One thing is for sure though, I would stop doing it if I did not get paid. I would have to do something else to pay the bills and would not quite have so much time for the spiritual rewards of being creative or enjoying the excellent debates on this site.

Copyright and IP like all aspects of human endeavour need control, not abolition

Amen to reform! But... while the human race is property orientated and wealth is valued more highly in many cases than knowledge we are going to have copyright and patents.

I would differentiate patents from copyright

Productive patents lead to creation of goods and procedures on interests from humankind (so they should, of course). Over protection should not be allowed. But, research with no protection at all is -I believe- impossible. Inventors need investors and markets. First to be able to study to create. Then to sell.

Big corporations can patent their work. They can employ experts to invent for them. Then can buy licences, and can put products into markets. Big corporations amount to a small percentage of industry (ie in Europe). Mamy SME, as well as Universities and research centers are involved in research. But, they have great difficulties to bring their inventions to the market. IF SME/Unis achieve inventions of economic and social interest, they are bound to have to licence in a very complex marketplace, where big corporations have negotiation expertise,a s well as scientific and financial resources.

Patents Law shoud-I believe- cover only productive creations. Then, defense rights against infringements must be strenghen. (at present patent litigation is so expensive that SME can harly afford a defense agains infringement by big corporations). True innovators (including SME/Unis) deserve a fair system that acknowledges their investment etc. This is where, -I submit- affordable Patent insurance form SME/Unis can be very useful.

I would differentiate patents from copyright

Productive patents lead to creation of goods and procedures that are of interests for humankind and progress (so they should, of course). Over protection should not be allowed. But, research with no protection at all is -I believe- impossible. Inventors need investors and markets. First to be able to study to create. Then to sell.

Big corporations can patent their work. They can employ experts to invent for them. Then can buy licences, and can put products into markets. But big corporations amount only to a small percentage of industry (ie in Europe). Many SME, as well as Universities and research centers are involved in research. But, they have great difficulties to bring their inventions to the market. IF SME/Unis achieve inventions of economic and social interest, they are bound to have to licence in a very complex marketplace, where big corporations have negotiation expertise,a s well as scientific and financial resources. The playing field is very unleveled

Patents Law shoud-I believe- cover only productive creations. Then, defense rights against infringements ought to be strenghen. (at present patent litigation is so expensive that SME can harly afford a defense agains infringement by big corporations, so they are bound to accept uneven licence agreements, or to maintain their inventions as a "trade secret"). True innovators (including SME/Unis) deserve a fair system that acknowledges their investment etc. This is where, -I submit- affordable Patent insurance form SME/Unis can be very useful.