This is an interesting article in Der Spiegel. It claims that the secret of the success of German industrialization throughout the 19th century (when Germany overtook the UK as the leading industrial nation of the world), was due to the relative total lack of protection granted to copyright.
It’s an interesting position, and one that seems to confirm indirect evidence we see today in phenomena like open source and wikis – maybe intellectual property rights that are too strong are preventing, rather than supporting innovation?
It should be noted that IPRs are a means to an end, and not an end in itself. The protection (monopoly) offered by IPRs to their creator, are supposed to ensure that, through this protection, innovation is rewarded, and that more innovation occurs as a result of that protection and reward.
The balance should be that, because of IPRs and the protection they offer, we see more innovation rather than less.
However, in many debates on IPRs and their protection, it is assumed generally that “more protection = more innovation”. Is that really the case, or is there a risk of overshoot?
As always, the burden of proof is on those who claim that something is true. So: “stronger IPRs mean more innovation”, not a statement of fact, but that which must be established.
Quod erat demonstrandum.
It would be good to seem more contributions to the debate, rather than entrenched positions.