I am looking at the work of my fellow nousionauts, to synthesize their conclusions with my own.
James starts with a definition of Intellectual Property and the uses of… I think this is very valuable to his case. He proceeds to give a summary of each of the readings supplied to us by our instructor. The following statements stood out for me:
- “Well if IP is neither Intellectual nor property, do we call it Imaginary Property? It’s inaccurate and can mean something different than copyrights. In this model, we ignore the intellectual part altogether but that doesn’t seem right because intellectual output isn’t imaginary.” Exactly! Great point.
- So IP is then an issue of creation versus scarcity. Society benefits from creation but needs to have rules to promote its creation. One thought is to allow IP to be a contract. That is a time limit to the value provided for the creation of a IP. But should this be a contract [with the government] or a reserved right?” But, let’s go back to the idea of scarcity… Did you agree with that?
Olivia K had several things to say that I wanted to respond to:
- “That means that companies are at risk for their ideas, authenticity, and products to be stolen, therefore they need to be protected.” Absolutely! I agree 100%
- “When you come up with an amazing idea for a product, for example, some people might want to duplicate one’s success and take credit for that idea as their own.” Yes!
- “Protecting intellectual property can also protect business growth too.” We are on the same page!
Honestly, as a conservative in a nation that sometimes seems to be predominantly liberal, I feel like a have a very quiet voice. After reading the very loud opinions of Kinsella, it was nice to be affirmed by at least one of my classmates. I think we all like to be affirmed.