The Case Against Intellectual Property

Abstract

According to a common argument, the presence of strong intellectualproperty rights spurs innovation, which leads to higher economic growthand increasing benefits for all. The argument seems coherent: theestablishment of secure property rights is a fundamental pillar of a wellfunctioning market economy. No economic agent exercises productiveeffort without the certainty of controlling its fruits. What is true forphysical effort must be true for the intellectual one: if strong propertyrights provide good incentives for the production of potatoes, they mustalso provide good incentives for the production of ideas.Why then do we argue a “case against intellectual property?” Are wearguing that, while stealing potatoes is bad, stealing ideas is good? Weare not. Economic efficiency, and common sense, argue that ideasshould be protected and available for sale, just like any other commodity.But “intellectual property” has come to mean not only the right to ownand sell ideas, but also the right to regulate their use. This creates asocially inefficient monopoly, and what is commonly called intellectualproperty might be better called “intellectual monopoly.” When you buy apotato you can eat it, throw it away, plant it or make it into a sculpture.Current law allows producers of a CDs and books to take this freedomaway from you. When you buy a potato you can use the “idea” of a potatoembodied in it to make better potatoes or to invent french fries. Currentlaw allows producers of computer software or medical drugs to take thisfreedom away from you. It is against this distorted extension ofintellectual property rights that we argue.It is a long jump from the assertion that inventors deserve the fruits oftheir efforts to the conclusion that current patent and copyrightprotection are the best way of providing such reward. Statements such