In this “IP Viewpoints” post, I hope to combine two Uncontroversial Premises to reach a Counterintuitive Conclusion about the role that intellectual property can play in the regulation of innovation.
First Uncontroversial Premise: IP is a useful tool for creating incentives to innovate, but too much IP protection is counterproductive.
Giving innovators exclusive control over certain uses of their innovations allows them to commercialize their inventiveness and creativity, and thus helps ensure a return of the resources they invest in their craft. But IP protection also brings with it certain costs – and when IP rights reach a certain level of strength, these costs overwhelm the benefits in incentive. [...]
James Gibson, Using IP To Suppress Innovation (On Purpose), The Media Institute (July 29, 2009), available at https://www.mediainstitute.org/2009/07/29/using-ip-to-suppress-innovation-on-purpose/.