Intellectual Property Laws: Controversial & Subtly Sinister

Opponents of intellectual property (IP) laws cite two main arguments against IP legislation: IP laws discourage creativity because potential innovators may be legally hindered in their work and IP laws allow individuals or companies to monopolize on a discovery that could benefit science and the public if shared. I see merit in their views; however, I do not think these reasons would damage general creativity as much as IP law opponents assert. The counter-forces that result from IP laws can either force greater depth in research by requiring scientists to reverse-engineer products or encourage quick expansion of existing technologies to patent a new feature. In a way, patent laws can force the pace of discovery. Whether or not IP legislation increases progression, I believe IP laws cause great damage by shifting the motivation for creativity. Prior to IP laws, innovators and inventors were commonly driven by passion and personal interest. Today, IP laws subtly change a creator's goal to protecting his idea from others or inventing to defeat his competition. These forces, driven by money and greed, have always existed, but IP laws augment them. I am saddened by this outcome. Some fundamental, pure part of the path of progress has been tainted by greed, and one day society will feel the corruption derivative of this moral decay.