Intellectual Property's Relationship to Creativity

The debate concerning IP protection's effect on creativity has always been one that I have difficulty forming an opinion on. Most likely that is because I have worked on few (ok, no) high stakes, high paying, highly secretive projects that would genuinely rely on IP protection. I've found that I usually have to experience the worst of a situation in order to form a solid opinion. Nevertheless, the question of whether IP protection fosters or inhibits creativity is a cross-discipline concern that will probably be further complicated as more companies and industries adopt team-based approaches to problem-solving, as talented individuals become more transient and jump from job-to-job or city-to-city, and even as corporations face greater criticism from a frustrated public demanding transparency in all facets.

One side of the debate posits that IP protection (patents, trademarks & copyrights) is necessary to encourage artists, scientists and inventors to work hard to innovate because they will enjoy credit (usually publicly) for the research, protection from those looking to copycat and make a quick buck, and - in many cases - compensation of some sort. Supporters of this side fear that a lack of IP protection could result in the type of "brain drain" typically linked to socialism, where talented professionals leave (or in this case are unmotivated to develop new ideas) due to fear that someone else will enjoy the fruits of their labor.

On the other end of the spectrum, the argument is that IP protection inhibits "perfect competition." Supporters of this side believe that being first to market (or first to patent/copyright/trademark) does not necessarily mean best. If other creators were allowed to compete, then the public would be better off and companies/inventors would strive harder to innovate. I have a hard time believing that this theory would actually work in the way that it sounds. Although I understand the logic behind it, it seems that it would lead to mayhem.

As in all situations, finding a balance between protection and competition seems key to advancing our society as a whole. Of all the readings, the comment that stood out to me more than any other, was Hugh Dubberly's response to a survey question of whether interface designs should be protected by patents. Dubberly indicated that he did not necessarily agree with granting interface design patents and questioned whether or not true innovation took place within the framework. (emphasis is mine)

"Even if it did [take place], limiting use seems to hurt the society as a whole. For example, the notion that Amazon "owns" one-button check out is absurd. Society is harmed by restricting that system to Amazon. [...] Clearly, Amazon did not expend large amounts of time or money to come up with the idea. Not patenting it would not reduce the efforts of others. What's more, granting patents has not resulted in a flurry of research. The result has simply been richer lawyers."

I'm not sure where the balance can be reached between protection and competition, but I think Dubberly's idea of considering the impact on society (NOT the company) should be at the core of intellectual property protection decisions.