The Instigator
despaerate.pete
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
LatentDebater
Con (against)
Winning
10 Points

The law Intellectual Property is the mean of monopoly for big companies

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 3 votes the winner is...
LatentDebater
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/26/2013 Category: Economics
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,126 times Debate No: 29569
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (0)
Votes (3)

 

despaerate.pete

Pro

It's sounds good and fair competition in market for smart people to be protected with the law of Intellectual property(IP). However, many spheres in markets it is getting revealed as a monopoly.
LatentDebater

Con

Le me amend the resolution so it makes perfectly clear sense:

The Law of Intellectual Property (also known as Patenting) is the means by which monopolies are forming as large corporations.

I disagree with this because if a smaller company patented their way of doing something then the large corporation couldn't so it's a wonderful way of allowing diverse competition. If the patenting law was not present then smaller companies would get copied from as their way of doing things is not their intellectual property and if anything monopolies would rise far more brutally and rapidly by mimicking their competitors ingenuity.
Debate Round No. 1
despaerate.pete

Pro

My opponent argues that IP law makes market more diverse and fair to compete.

However, I strongly believe that IP law makes market more unfair.
Fiirst, The stated objective of most IP law is to "promote progress", which implies by exchanging limited exclusive rights for disclosure of inventions and creative works society and the patentee/copyright owner "Mutually Benefit". However, the public interests are harmed by ever expansive monopolies in the form of copyright extensions, software patents, and business method patents. Also, many of scientists and engineers are expressing concern that patent tickets are undermining technological developments even in high-tech fields. For example, Microsoft Corporation is frequently criticized as most of the people know. Like my opponent says, it might be beneficial for small companies to have IP. However, for those who don't have enough technological level to make their own IP and have to derive big companies' IP to earn money, they have no choice but paying huge money, which means unbalance of market.
LatentDebater

Con

Let me get this straight... The IP protection law is erroneous and unfair due to the fact that it requires the spending of money to large companies? The irony is that the repugnant ignorance of the fact that large companies would undeniably profit more, financially, from a lack of IP protection is so very present throughout my opponent's case.

Why do we have the wonderful drinks of Pepsi and Coke? I say wonderful based on the multi-million dollar income per annum of the corporations. Well, the reason is simple due to IP laws. There would have been absolutely no motivation for newly arising Pepsi to ever make a different recipe for Coke if it was legal to mimic it and no reason for Coke to not begin making Pepsi recipe as well (which would have been ridiculously easy for they were millions richer than Pepsi when it began and could have advertised the recipe as their own much faster as well as made exclusive deals with other companies. They would simply make a bottle named Cocavolution or something indicate an evolved version of Coke and use Pepsi's exact recipe (not too hard since all they'd have to do was to get a bottle of Pepsi take it to their labs and use their high tech equipment to determine the recipe which would hardly be too different from coke. Thus Pepsi would never have arisen and the quality of the drink would never have improved since there'd be no reason for coke to care as they would have thwarted Pepsi undeniably from the competitive market.

What's so wrong with Microsoft's copyright protection? Is Apple any better? No. It simply makes it fair.
Debate Round No. 2
despaerate.pete

Pro

Imagine the time when men lived in caves. One bright guy"let's call him Peter" decides to build a log cabin on an open field, near his crops. To be sure, this is a good idea, and others notice it. They naturally imitate Peter, and they start building their own cabins. But the first man to invent a house, according to IP advocates, would have a right to prevent others from building houses on their own land, with their own logs, or to charge them a fee if they do build houses. It is plain that the innovator in these examples becomes a partial owner of the tangible property (e.g., land and logs) of others, due not to first occupation and use of that property (for it is already owned), but due to his coming up with an idea. Clearly, this rule flies in the face of the first-user homesteading rule, arbitrarily and groundlessly overriding the very homesteading rule that is at the foundation of all property rights. Furthermore, the ethical problems brought up by IP rights are most pertinent when it is socially valuable goods like life-saving medicines and genetically modified seeds that are given IP protection. For example, pharmaceutical companies that produce, apply IP rights in order to prevent other companies from manufacturing their product without the additional cost of research and development. The application of IP rights allows companies to charge higher than the marginal cost of production in order to recoup the costs of research and development. However, this immediately excludes from the market anyone who cannot afford the cost of the product, in this case a life saving drug.
The availability problem is a consequence of the fact that the incentiving mechanism for innovation constituted by IPRs establishes a direct link between the incentive to innovate and the price of the innovative product. Under an IPR driven regime, profits are generated exclusively from sales. This means that the higher a price a product can command on the market, the higher is the incentive to invest resources into the R&D process of it. An IPR driven regime is therefore not a regime that is conductive to the investment of R&D of products that are socially valuable to predominately poor populations.
LatentDebater

Con

In caveman times there was no government or law. Only the strongest survived and could not only mimic but kill those who mimicked them (far more severe than IP laws). So really that example was rubbish.

When you speak of essential things like logs were to the cavemen, the essentials of life are not able to be IP protected. Someone can IP protect a method of getting water but never I protect water itself being used (only being used in a certain MANNER in an industrial process perhaps). Also you raised a completely new point by doing this and raising a new point in the last round of the debate is very poor conduct.

The following contentions went 100% unaddressed for your entire debate.

C#1: If the patenting law was not present then smaller companies would get copied from as their way of doing things is not their intellectual property and if anything monopolies would rise far more brutally and rapidly by mimicking their competitors' ingenuity.

C#2: Large corporations would undeniably profit more, financially, from a lack of IP protection.

C#3: There would have been absolutely no motivation for newly arising Pepsi to ever make a different recipe for Coke if it was legal to mimic it.

C#4: There would also have been no reason for Coke to not begin making Pepsi recipe as well (which would have been ridiculously easy for they were millions richer than Pepsi when it began and could have advertised the recipe as their own much faster as well as made exclusive deals with other companies).

You seem to be fixated on the fact that large corporations profit from it without realising how much more they'd profit without it and in fact how much easier it is for monopolies to form with an absence of IPRs.

I conclude that Intellectual Property Rights are undeniably more beneficial to everyone except large corporations and they effectively prevent monopolies from arising.
Debate Round No. 3
No comments have been posted on this debate.
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by Deadlykris 4 years ago
Deadlykris
despaerate.peteLatentDebaterTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro failed to meet burden of proof, and left many points unchallenged.
Vote Placed by morgan2252 4 years ago
morgan2252
despaerate.peteLatentDebaterTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Both sides are basically the same in terms of spelling and grammar, conduct, and sources. However, Con definitely convinced me and has more convincing arguments.
Vote Placed by OhioGary 4 years ago
OhioGary
despaerate.peteLatentDebaterTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Both debators were very cordial to each other, so Conduct is a tie. S&G is a tie. I didn't see sources referenced from either side, so sources is a tie. Con refuted Pro's arguments every time. Pro said that IP protects big business; Con countered that IP actually protects inventors from big business. Pro argued that IP laws create unfair markets and requires companies to spend inordinate amounts of money; Con countered by saying that entire industries (Con cited Coke & Pepsi) would cease to exist which has a greater economic impact. Pro then argued about a utopian cave man like time; Con called it out as a weak argument. Arguments to Con.