Management Final Paper Focusing The IPR Debate

Name:
Institution:
Course:
Date:
The IPR Debate
Background information
In the past few years, the IPR debate has taken center stage on a number of occasions especially after news keep emerging of companies such as Microsoft suing Google or Google suing Apple or Samsung suing Apple and Apple suing Samsung. The above scenarios have led us back to the IPR debate all over again, and every time, people leave the conversation unfinished. Intellectual Property Rights have divided the country, and to a large extent, the world and people are still firmly grounded in their opinion cocoons. However, before details of the debate are elucidated, it is essential that an explanation of what intellectual property is as well as what it entails is provided. Marsh (2017) defines intellectual property as “a general term for the set of intangible assets owned and legally protected by a company from outside use or implementation without consent.” Marsh continues to state that it stems “from its ability to provide a firm with competitive advantages, defining IP as an asset to provide it with the same protective rights as physical property.” Aside from the definition of IP, it is indeed essential to know and understand the different types of intellectual property. They include copyrights, trademarks, patents (these happen to be the most expensive, valuable, and hardest or tedious to obtain), and trade secrets. It is also essential to understand that IPRs are not designed like any laws but typically take the intervention of internationally recognized bodies like World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO), Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS), World Customs Organization (WCO), etc.
Debate Regarding Intellectual Property Rights
The truth is the debate regarding intellectual property rights has been ongoing for several decades. There have been strong points for and against the idea of protecting intangible assets. While some people believe intangible assets should be protected, others firmly believe everything should be free including ideas. Neither side is willing to admit defeat, and this seems like another endless debate.
One of the points which seek to reinforce the importance of IPR indicates that it fosters innovation. The pro-IPR seem to believe that living in a world where ideas are not protected will negatively impact on the people who come up with ideas because they will not reap the benefits of their inventions. Additionally, it is also widely believed that businesses will focus less or fail to invest more in research and development because they will all be waiting for the next big idea to simply jump on board. It is also essential to note that artists will also lose a lot and will not be compensated for their creativity and work. The truth is creativity will take a major hit if the world is to do away with the IPRs. However, the people who believe that IPRs should be abolished also have strong arguments against IPRs, and one was particularly concocted as a response to the above reason why IPRs should be withheld. According to Plumer (2012), “competition is often a more plausible driver of innovation.” Plumer uses Boldrin and Levine’s argument to justify his ...