This is a proposal that is: Ok for those academics that don’t believe in IP
There are intellectuals who believe that any level of protection is wrong; Eben Moglen from the University of Columbia, probably the most extreme example, believes that all forms of intellectual property are analogous to slavery (dot.com manifiesto).
The current international system (expressed in the TRIPS Agreement) has set the level of protection at twenty years of exclusivity for new technologies globally. This is the status quo for patents.
Even hardliners of the position that there is no relationship between patents and innovation will be happier with TRIPS PLUS ULTRA than with the status quo, because under the TRIPS PLUS ULTRA proposal, the burden of what they may call “the stupidity that is the system” is shared among contributors according to their wealth (those who have more will contribute more), and therefore a fairer system. Finally, for those hardliners from the developed world that care for fairness only within their borders, and don´t give much thought to the poor elsewhere (where life is much more unfair), please, don´t stand in the way of a fair proposal that could help others just because you despise the system.
For further discussion go to our analysis on where the two sides of the aisle stand, and the status quo bias on the basis of which this proposal is constructed.
Remember, this is a proposal that is also:
- Okay with those that believe in IP, as well.
- Going to realign international positions.
- Good for consumers, overall.
- Convenient for producers.
- Convenient for the developed world.
- Convenient for developing countries.
- And remember, all of this would be possible just by changing Article 33 of the TRIPS agreement.