The two sides of the aisle

The academic question of whether patents produce more technology remains unanswered (there is still no agreement or irrefutable conclusion in that regard). Still, both sides will be happy with the TRIPS PLUS ULTRA proposal, taking into account the status quo.

On one side we have Eben Moglen from the University of Columbia, who says that all forms of intellectual property are analogous to slavery (see the dotCommunist Manifesto). Many have expressed more or less the same thought, although not quite as dramatically. This idea can be found in the crude language of the dotCommunist Manifesto or the more conciliatory argument of the “patent paradox” used by Robinson in 1939 and then subsequently addressed by Hayek, Marshal, Burns, Jewkes, Sawyers & Stilerman, Taylor, and Silberston, among others. Dhar and Rao criticize the system as the North and South´s gap perpetuation scheme. They all make, more or less, the same point. The most objective source of this general discontent with the current system, especially from an international point of view, is the work of the Argentinian professor Carlos Correa.

On the other side there are many, as well. Richard Epstein presents it in a very pragmatic manner, for instance. To him, intellectual property shares the same ethos or foundation, and is as essential for a free trade market society as real estate property. He argues that we could get rid of both real estate and intellectual property (as some have tried), but we keep them both because both are convenient for humanity.

But who is right, Moglen or Epstein?  There might not be a clear economic and statistical conclusion, yet, and that is why opinions are so sharply divided. Nonetheless, TRIPS PLUS ULTRA presents an alternative that is better for all sides taking into account the status quo. The status quo is expressed in Article 33 of the TRIPS Agreement, which we want to modify.

Remember, this proposal is also: