Intellectual Property

We’ve debated a lot in class about how the increase in intellectual property rights can actually hamper creativity. The “they say” is undoubtedly saying, no way, people only care about getting credit for what they thought of and couldn’t care less about everyone else trying to steal their idea. But according to Lessig there have been studies that show that people are actually more productive when they receive less protection for their ideas. So since it seems useless to try and debunk the “I say” that has been proven by science, I want to try and construct what I believe is the creators thought process when he decides to accomplish more and put forth more effort with the prospect of receiving less credit and ultimately less compensation for his or her idea. Because lets face it is seems totally contrary to human nature to willingly go along with this. Bill Gates did not start Microsoft with the intentions of creating the blueprints of his software and then just leaving them around for the world to look at, copy, and improve upon. I mean not everyone is UNICEF or another nonprofit, people want something and should receive something in return for their time. So again I come back to the question, then why are people apparently so willing to put forth effort for everyone to get a piece of the ultimate prize. Well, perhaps they are satisfied with receiving credit for the original idea. Or maybe they are so enthralled with the idea and they realize that it will never reach its full potential if they are the only person improving upon the idea. Personally, I think that the only reason that people are more productive with fewer restrictions is that it is much easier to build off of something that has already been started or that you find interesting than it is to start a brand new idea that has never been thought of before. I feel like this method of innovation is responsible for the majority of breakthroughs in society up to this point. Furthermore, I don’t mean just using initial ideas in one field to make an innovation in that same field but in other fields as well. For example, using a mathematical theorem to create a new methodology for writing music. But all of this mixing of ideas leads us to the sticky situation of, if everyone is pouring a little piece of themselves into this original idea, at what point does the improved idea become “our” or society’s idea and not his or her idea? And is this better for society, that not just one person is reaping the benefits of innovation but that society is making this person’s initial innovation better and everyone is receiving some utility from this innovation?