KOL427 | Lewis & Clark College Debate on Intellectual Property Imperialism

Kinsella on Liberty Podcast: Episode 427.

Yesterday (April 10, 2024) I participated in Strings Attached: Tracing the Global Systems that Bind, 62nd Annual International Affairs Symposium, Lewis & Clark College, Portland Oregon, Debate 5: Pirates and Patents. Debate Topic: Is international intellectual property regulation a necessary protection for innovators or a form of modern imperialism?

My opponent was Pieter Cleppe. My notes are appended below.

https://youtu.be/f_cpqc-oHd0

We got along well and had a nice dinner after the debate.

(Unofficial iphone Audio (mp3))

Strings Attached: Tracing the Global Systems that Bind.

62nd Annual International Affairs Symposium

Debate 5: Pirates and Patents.

Debate Topic: Is international intellectual property regulation a necessary protection for innovators or a form of modern imperialism?

Lewis & Clark College, Portland Oregon

April 10, 2024

Stephan Kinsella

Debate Topic: Is international intellectual property regulation a necessary protection for innovators or a form of modern imperialism?

“Patents, copyrights, trademarks, etc, are intangible legal protections that allow creators to monopolize the distribution of their ideas. The international system managing these rights is often praised for promoting and protecting innovation. However, it raises the costs of acquiring new technologies, life-saving medicines, and access to knowledge for developing states. How should international intellectual property standards balance these competing interests?”

Introduction

I am a practicing patent and intellectual property, or IP, attorney for 30 years and a libertarian for even longer than that.
At the dawn of my career, after many years of research and thought, I came to the conclusion that all forms of IP law are completely unjust.
This perspective will inform my remarks today.

Notice my opponent’s remarks were not systematic and did not carefully define the relevant terms.

In fact his arguments rested on two false assumptions: that patent and copyright increase innovation, and that IP law is therefore justified.

Imperialism and IP

What is imperialism? Imperialism: “a policy of extending a country’s power and influence through diplomacy or military force.”

“Imperialism is when a country extends its power into other territories for economic or political gain.”

Now, IP law is prevalent in the west: patent, copyright, trademark, and other forms.
There can be little doubt that the west, especially the United States, has used its influence and power to push or even coerce other countries to adopt US-style IP law, primarily patent and copyright

This is done sometimes by direct imposition or, more usually, by softer forms of coercion such as investment and free trade agreements or other international treaties
Direct imposition/coercion:

for example the US expanded Iraqi patent law by decree in 2004, by order of Paul Bremer, the “Administrator” of the “Coalition Provisional Authority”
German constitution, or “Basic Law,” 1949, under US domination: Article 96 authorizes the establishment by federal law of the Federal Patent Court
Example below: under pressures from the west, the Thai government specifically undertook not to implement Article 8 (on compulsory licensing) for HIV/AIDS treatment

Treaties: The Berne Convention already requires member states to have a minimum copyright term of life of the author plus 50 years; the US has added 20 years to this(life plus 70)

Treaties such as the Paris Convention and Patent Cooperation Treaty require member states to maintain certain minimum patent protections

The US uses its dominant position to force other countries or regions to adopt US-style IP policies via “free trade” agreements and others like Bilateral Investment Treaties (BITs)

2500 BITs in the world today, many US-sponsored