Intellectual Property Rights Topic Lecture - Part 3

Summary

This three-part lecture series delves into the intricacies of intellectual property in the 2024-2025 debate season. It covers affirmative and negative arguments, focusing on copyright, patent, and trademark issues. Key topics include AI database licensing, AI ownership of creative works, standards development organizations, deep fakes, and animal copyrights. The series also addresses the political landscape, the role of the three branches of government, and the influence of lobbying in shaping IP laws. It concludes with potential disadvantages and counter-plans, emphasizing the debate over the merits and drawbacks of strengthening intellectual property rights.

Takeaways

• 📚 The lecture series covers affirmative and negative arguments on intellectual property topics, emphasizing the importance of understanding the context from previous videos.
• 🤖 Likely affirmatives include AI database licensing for generative AI, AI ownership of creative works, and standards development organizations' copyright concerns.
• 🐒 The debate over animal copyrights, exemplified by the 'monkey selfie' case, questions whether non-human entities can own copyrights.
• 💊 Patent eligibility restoration act (PERAH) is a significant affirmative that could allow certain software and medical patents currently deemed ineligible to be patented.
• 🛡️ An AI ownership affirmative in patents addresses the issue of AI-created inventions and their ownership, distinct from copyright discussions.
• 🚫 A pharmaceutical March-in rights affirmative prevents the federal government from seizing or force licensing patents from pharmaceutical companies under public health emergencies.
• 🔄 The patent trial and appeal board (PTAB) is a target for reform or elimination in some affirmatives to limit who can challenge existing patents.
• 🌐 There's a push for international approaches to intellectual property, suggesting that global coalitions should manage IP rights instead of individual nations.
• 🏛️ The separation of powers plays a crucial role in intellectual property, with the legislative, executive, and judicial branches each having distinct responsibilities and impacts.
• 💼 The influence of lobbying and politics in intellectual property is significant, with various industries and groups actively shaping policies and regulations.

Q & A

What are the three main parts of the lecture on intellectual property?

The lecture is divided into three parts: the first part discusses likely affirmative arguments in all three topic areas, the second part covers the separation of powers and government's role in intellectual property, and the third part presents other likely negative arguments.

What is an AI database affirmative and how does it relate to generative AI?

An AI database affirmative would require licensing for generative AI created using copyrighted material. Currently, no licensing is required when generative AI uses copyrighted material for training, but this affirmative would change that requirement.

How does AI ownership relate to copyright and patents?

AI ownership affirmatives propose that AI should be allowed to own the creative works it creates for copyrights and the inventions it develops for patents, which is not currently the case.

What is the issue with standards development organizations and government use of their standards?

Standards development organizations face a problem when their standards are used by the government because such standards are not considered copyrightable, which they argue reduces their profitability and hampers maintaining standards across different organizations.

What is the debate around deep fakes and copyright?

The debate concerns whether an individual should own their likeness if it's used in a deep fake to say or do things they wouldn't. Currently, using someone's likeness in this way is not restricted by copyright law.

What is the 'monkey selfie' case mentioned in the script, and what was its outcome?

The 'monkey selfie' case involved a non-human primate taking a photo with a camera set up by a photographer. The photographer claimed copyright, while an animal rights organization argued the monkey should own the copyright. The courts ruled in favor of the photographer, retaining the copyright.

What does the Patent Eligibility Restoration Act (PERAH) aim to do?

PERAH aims to allow certain software and medical patents, currently deemed ineligible, to be patented. It would change how courts interpret patentability and clarify what is patentable through Congress.

How does the patent trial and appeal board (PTAB) function, and how could it be affected by affirmatives?

The PTAB allows anyone to challenge the granting of a patent. Affirmatives could reform or eliminate the PTAB, limiting who can challenge patents and significantly strengthening patent protections.

What is the role of the legislative branch in intellectual property?

The legislative branch is responsible for creating and clarifying laws related to intellectual property, such as the America Invents Act, which switched the US from a 'first to invent' to a 'first to file' system and established the PTAB.

How does the executive branch contribute to intellectual property regulations?

The executive branch issues regulations that interpret existing laws, with the US Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) being responsible for registering and monitoring trademarks and examining patent applications.

What is the judicial branch's role in interpreting intellectual property laws?

The judicial branch interprets existing laws through individual cases, determining what is patentable, and can influence the direction of intellectual property law, as seen in cases like Alice Corp. vs. CLS Bank International.

Outlines

00:00

📚 Introduction to Intellectual Property Debate

This segment introduces the third part of a lecture series on intellectual property for the 2024-2025 debate season. The speaker encourages viewers to watch the first two parts for context and outlines the structure of the lecture, which includes discussions on affirmative arguments, the role of government in intellectual property, and negative arguments. The lecture will cover various topics such as AI database licensing, AI ownership, standards development organizations, deep fakes, and animal copyrights. It sets the stage for a deep dive into the complexities of intellectual property in the digital age.

05:00

💡 Patent and Trademark Affirmatives

This paragraph delves into potential affirmative arguments for patent and trademark issues. It discusses the Patent Eligibility Restoration Act (PERAH), which could make certain software and medical patents eligible for protection. The speaker also addresses AI ownership of inventions, the prevention of government seizure of pharmaceutical patents, and reforms to the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB). Additionally, the paragraph touches on the idea of creating specialized patent courts, fast-tracking patent approvals, and patent fee shifting. It also considers expanding fee waivers for small businesses and startups, changing from a first-to-file to a first-to-invent system, extending patent terms, and protecting indigenous knowledge through patents and trademarks.

10:02

🏛️ Government's Role in Intellectual Property

The speaker explains the involvement of the three branches of the U.S. federal government in intellectual property: legislative, executive, and judicial. The legislative branch is responsible for creating laws, such as the America Invents Act, which changed the patent system and established the PTAB. The executive branch, through the USPTO and the Copyright Office, issues regulations and oversees patent and trademark registrations. The judicial branch interprets laws through cases, impacting what is considered patentable. This section highlights the interplay between government functions and intellectual property rights.

15:02

💼 Politics and Critiques in Intellectual Property

This final paragraph explores the political landscape of intellectual property, noting the significant lobbying efforts and the influence of various industries. It discusses the potential disadvantages of strengthening intellectual property rights, such as innovation hindrance, economic impacts, and industry-specific harms. The speaker also mentions the role of the courts, including the potential for increased litigation and the impact on the judicial system. Furthermore, it addresses counter plans, such as separation of powers-based arguments, multilateral approaches, and critiques of the capitalist and colonialist aspects of intellectual property. The lecture concludes with a summary of the topic-based critiques and a wish for a successful debate season.

Keywords

💡Intellectual Property

Intellectual property refers to creations of the mind, such as inventions, literary and artistic works, designs, and symbols, names, and images used in commerce. In the video, intellectual property is the central theme, with discussions on how it can be protected, licensed, and how it interacts with various areas like AI, deep fakes, and indigenous knowledge.

💡Generative AI

Generative AI refers to artificial intelligence systems that can create new content, such as text, images, or music. The video discusses the potential requirement for licensing when generative AI uses copyrighted material for training, indicating a debate on the ownership and use of AI-generated content.

💡Copyright

Copyright is a legal right that grants the creator of an original work exclusive rights to its use and distribution. The video touches on copyright issues related to AI-generated works, deep fakes, and the 'monkey selfie' case, illustrating the evolving nature of copyright in the digital age.

💡Separation of Powers

The separation of powers is a political doctrine that suggests that state authority should be divided into branches to prevent the concentration of power. In the context of the video, it is discussed in relation to how different branches of government handle intellectual property, reflecting on the political dynamics and checks and balances involved.

💡Patent

A patent is a form of intellectual property that gives its owner the legal right to exclude others from making, using, or selling an invention. The video mentions various patent-related affirmatives, such as the Patent Eligibility Restoration Act (PERAH) and the pharmaceutical march-in rights, which aim to alter the patent landscape.

💡Trademark

A trademark is a recognizable sign, design, or expression which identifies products or services of a particular source from those of others. The video briefly touches on trademarks, suggesting areas of debate such as third-party sellers of counterfeit goods and the protection of 'dead' trademarks.

💡Lobbying

Lobbying is the act of attempting to influence decisions made by officials in government, typically legislators or members of regulatory agencies. The video highlights the significant amount of money and effort spent on IP lobbying, indicating the economic and political stakes involved in intellectual property law and policy.

💡Deep Fakes

Deep fakes are synthetic media in which a person's likeness is used to create a potentially misleading video or audio. The video discusses the copyright implications of deep fakes, such as whether an individual owns their likeness when it's used without consent, bringing up questions about personal privacy and digital manipulation.

💡Indigenous Knowledge

Indigenous knowledge refers to the understandings, skills, and philosophies developed by indigenous peoples, often passed down through generations. The video mentions the potential for expanding the ability to patent, trademark, or copyright indigenous knowledge, which raises ethical and cultural considerations in intellectual property rights.

💡Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB)

The PTAB is an administrative court established by the United States Patent and Trademark Office. It is discussed in the video in the context of reforms or potential eliminations, which would impact who can challenge the validity of patents, reflecting broader debates on patent litigation and innovation.

💡First to File System

The first to file system is a patent registration system where the patent is granted to the first inventor to file a patent application. The video mentions the possibility of shifting back from the current 'first to invent' system, which could have significant implications for inventors and the pace of innovation.

Highlights

The lecture covers affirmative and negative arguments on intellectual property topics.

Discusses the potential requirement for licensing generative AI that uses copyrighted material for training.

Explores the concept of AI ownership of creative works it generates.

Talks about the impact on standards development organizations when government uses their standards.

Considers the legal ownership of likeness in deepfake technology.

Questions whether animals can own copyrights for works they create, referencing the 'monkey selfie' case.

Introduces the Patent Eligibility Restoration Act (PERAH) and its potential to expand patent eligibility.

Discusses the prevention of federal government seizure and force licensing of pharmaceutical patents.

Proposes reforms to the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) to limit patent challenges.

Suggests the creation of specialized patent courts to uphold existing patents.

Considers fast-tracking patent approval and suits to speed up the judicial process.

Talks about patent fee shifting as a deterrent for frivolous lawsuits.

Explores the idea of expanding patent fee waivers for small corporations and startups.

Considers shifting back to a 'first to invent' system from the current 'first to file' system.

Discusses the possibility of extending patent terms to incentivize innovation.

Addresses the issue of patenting indigenous knowledge and the potential for its expansion.

Highlights the role of the three branches of government in intellectual property rights.

Discusses the significant amount of lobbying and its impact on intellectual property legislation.

Considers the potential disadvantages of increased intellectual property protection on innovation.

Talks about the economic and inflationary impacts of strengthening intellectual property rights.

Discusses the potential for increased litigation and court clog as a disadvantage.

Considers the political controversies that may arise from changes in intellectual property laws.

Addresses the potential impact on the 2024 elections as a disadvantage of certain intellectual property reforms.

Explores counter plans based on the separation of powers and the role of different branches of government.

Discusses the idea of international coalitions and multilateral approaches to intellectual property.

Considers critiques of capitalism and colonialism within the context of intellectual property rights.

Transcripts

hi Debaters welcome to part three of a

2024 2025 topic lecture on the

intellectual property Topic in this

section we will cover affirmative and

negative arguments on the topic if you

haven't watched the other two videos I

would really encourage you to do that

first because it will give you a lot of

context about what we're talking about

here this lecture will have three parts

the first part is about likely

affirmatives um and we'll talk about top

likely affirmatives in all three of the

topic areas the second part will be

about the separation of powers and how

the government works in terms of

relationship to intellectual property

and how that plays out politically and

then the third part will have other

likely neg

arguments so we'll start with likely

a some initial copyright a ideas include

an AI database affirmative that would

require licensing for generative AI

created using copyrighted material so

right now um licensing is not required

when generative AI uses material to

train on so for example if you've ever

used chat GPT um you have used a

generative AI um machine and that it has

been training based on all sorts of

books and newspapers and magazines and

other things that are already

copyrighted in order to learn about the

world and in order to learn about

writing styles and how to write things

and a lot of those authors of those

Works uh would like to that to be

copyrighted they think that um it should

be a copy violation to train using their

material um and so this would require

licensing for that another affirmative

is about AI ownership it would allow AI

to own the creative works it creates so

if AI writes a poem or if AI writes a

song um the ownership of that is not

assigned to the AI right now um and this

would assign that to the AI a third one

is about standards development

organizations um and these are

organizations that write standards for

use by others right now these

organizations if they write a standard

that's for private use that has

copyright but if they write um a

standard that's then used by the

government when the federal government

incorporates that standard um it is not

considered copyrightable anymore because

US government works are not

copyrightable we talked about that in

the second video um the standards

development organizations argue that

that kills their profitability um and

That's essential to um maintaining

standards across different organizations

um and uh bureaucracy and that sort of

thing a fourth copyright affirmative

that you might see this year it concerns

deep FES um and has the question about

whether you own your own likeness if

somebody uses a video of you or a

picture of you to say things that you

would not say um right now there's you

know they can do that um and if they

can't do that um it's not because of

copyright and so um this would be an app

that deals with deep fakes in the area

of copyright um and the last one is

about animal copyrights um whether an a

a work produced by an animal can be

owned by that animal um the courts have

currently said no to that so for example

you may have heard heard um it's it's

often referred to as the monkey selfie

case where um a primate the a non-human

primate was took a picture using a a

camera that a photographer had set up in

a field um and that selfie that the uh

that the primate took um the

photographer argued that it was his uh

copyright that he owned that picture um

and Peta the animal rights organization

sued on behalf of the primate saying

that it should be owned by the primate

um they lost that case um and the

photographer retained the copyright and

so the question is whether animals can

own their own

copyrights some additional patent app

ideas there's a whole bunch here and and

frankly I probably could have created

three more slides of these but these are

are some of the biggies that you might

encounter as you get started um and

there will be definitely more in this

area um the first is the patent

eligibility restoration act or perah um

this act does a whole bunch of things

but the primary thing um that it would

likely do um that would be relevant for

affirm advantages is that would allow

certain software and medical patents

that are currently deemed ineligible um

to be patented a lot of medical devices

are not patentable um because they're

sort of developed by a computer um or

are seen as obvious and so this would

change the way that courts have

interpreted what is patentable um and

have Congress sort of clarify What's

patentable um there's an AI ownership

app here too it's the same argument as

the AI copyright F but instead of being

about creative Works uh created by AI

it's about inventions developed by AI

there's a pharmaceutical Marchin

affirmative uh that would prevent the

federal government from seizing and

force licensing patents from Pharma

companies so um right now if you have a

vaccine patent and the federal

government believes that um That vaccine

is necessary to uh the public health

they can come in and force you to

license it or Force license it for you

um and seize that patent um this would

prevent that there's a similar uh but

perhaps larger AF um that that does the

same question stops uh waivers for

biotech patent and doesn't allow the

federal government to wave biotech

patents um in in certain circumstances

that they could maybe do that now

there's an app that relates to the

patent trial and appeal board the ptab

um which is a board that allows just

about anyone to sue um and say a patent

shouldn't have been granted um this

affirmative would either reform or

eliminate the patent trial and appeal

board and thus limit um who could

challenge a patent this would

significantly strengthen patents because

it would mean that only certain uh

organizations would be ble to challenge

a specific patent to a dramatically

limit who could challenge existing

patents um there are also other

countries that um don't have patents

heard by regular courts they have

special patent courts um and so one way

to potentially strengthen um existing

patents would be to create a specialized

set of patent courts that might be more

likely to uphold existing patents um

another we talked earlier in the second

video about how slow the um us PTO is

the patent and trademark office one idea

would be to either FastTrack patents uh

approval or FastTrack patent suits

meaning um that the suits themselves

would be fast-tracked as they move their

way through the judicial system um they

would not sort of wait in the same line

as all sorts of other cases um another

idea is is patent fee shifting um that's

a circumstance where if you uh lose a

patent case you would pay the fees for

um your opponent the the person you sued

um and that would create a situation

where um it might reduce frivolous

lawsuits challenging existing patents

because um the company would know that

if they challenge a pat p and loss

they'd have to pay the patented the

company who owns the patent um for their

legal fees um another idea would be to

expand fat patent fee waivers or fee

reductions um we talked earlier about

how it can be hard for small

corporations or small businesses or new

startups to get patents um that it can

be very expensive for them um the patent

the USPTO does have some uh reductions

in fees for smaller organizations but we

could you could the plan could expand

those pretty significantly or wave them

all together for first time filers um we

talked earlier about how the United

States has a first defile system meaning

it's not the person who invents the

product but the person who first files

it that's a change um we could shift

back to the first to invent system um

there are some people say that that

would be a more effective means of of

keeping the patent courts uh moving and

also keep it uh like more strongly

reward uh first inventors in an area um

we could extend the patent terms patents

you know are are limited depending on

what kind of patent it is whether it's a

p plant patent or other types of patents

a design patent or a Utility Patent um

there are different amounts of time that

a patent exists you could expand those

um and have people maintain patents much

longer um and argue that that uh leads

to um you know more incentive to patent

things and finally there are there's an

indigenous knowledge area a which I

think um could also certainly be in the

area of copyrights and trademarks as

well but um it would allow uh a a

significant expansion of the ability to

Patent Trademark or copyright indigenous

knowledge that has previously um been

considered either obvious or um been

offered to the corporation who filed it

first no matter how long it has existed

into indigenous groups um certainly

because we have a first file system um

if an indigenous cure for something um

is patented but it is patented by the

corporation that decides to patent it

first even if it has existed for a

really long time um in indigenous groups

that could create situations where uh

they no longer have access to their

their own

cures as mentioned earlier trademarks is

probably going to be the smallest area

of the topic but there are a couple

things I did want to mention here one is

a thirdparty sellers affirmative which

would hold thirdparty sellers of

counterfeit Goods liable for trademark

violations so if you've ever seen a

website that's selling a knock off of a

watch or a purse or some other product

um right now only the uh person who

produced that product is liable for the

trademark violation this would hold the

website that sells it also liable for

the trademark violation which would

significantly reduce um trademark

violations or at least that's the idea

there another one is a dead trademarks

affirmative this would allow trademark

protection to continue even when a

company stops using the trademark this

would mean that companies that for

example abandon previously racist

imagery associated with their brand um

could stop using that allog together

stop selling it um and not allow other

companies able to capture it right now

um for example the Cleveland Guardians

still sell um some products under their

former name and they do that alleged

because um otherwise another person

could come in and and capture that

trademark if they stopped using it in

Commerce so um this affirmative would

allow dead trademarks to continue to

have some trademark protection in

certain

cases it's also important to talk about

the separation of pow and the politics

of intellectual property so we're going

to do that

now as you probably know we have three

branches in the federal government the

legislative executive and judicial

branches and all are involved in

intellectual property the legislative

branch is in charge of making and uh

creating the laws and clarifying them in

certain circumstances um they so for

example the Ley Smith America invents

act in 2011 switched the us from the

first to invent system to the first to

file system and created the post Grant

review process the ptab that we talked

about um just a minute ago when we were

talking about affirmatives um and the

federal government or the legislative

branch is also the one that would do

something like the perah uh the

executive Branch issues regulations that

interpret those existing laws so they

clarify eligibility for patent

applications and in particular um the

Department of Commerce houses the US

patent and trademark office um which as

discussed earlier has no federal funding

it's funded entirely by fees and

Congress actually takes about 10% of

their funding from them um they are in

charge of registering and monitoring

trademark examining patent applications

by assigning them to an examining group

and searching for prior art and

establishing novelty and non-obviousness

so all of that happens within the patent

and trademark office or the US PTO

within the Department of Commerce and

then finally within the executive branch

under the Library of Congress is the

copyright office um that's a much

smaller office um but they are in charge

of registering and monitoring existing

copyrights the judicial branch uh

interprets existing laws through

individual cases so for example a case

like Alice Corp versus CLS Bank

International which determined the

patentability of software um some of the

apps that we've talked about earlier

like the pera um AR that the Supreme

Court and the judicial branch in

particular um has sort of overreached in

limiting patent applications and so we

should um you know have the legislative

branch sort of some restore some

previous patentability but in any case

uh the judicial branch is able to uh

determine what is patentable and and

interpret existing laws um that goes

through the starts with the federal

circuit court of appeals um if the

federal circuit court of appeals then it

gets appealed from there um to the

district courts um and then it could

theoretically get appealed all the way

to the Supreme Court um but most of the

time it does not most of the time it

would stop at the district court um the

Supreme Court takes on a a court case

related to IP every couple of years um

but those tend to be major AFS so um

major cases that make their way to the

Supreme Court only every three or four

years but in debate certainly uh the

Supreme Court could be involved because

of the existence of

Fiat so let's talk about the politics of

intellectual property so um there is

about $700 million of Ip lobbying

annually um and there are 400 registered

lobbying companies actively engaged in

lobing the federal government on IPR

related issues um some of the biggest

ones are in software and other uh

technology um some of the other ones are

in media um in biotechnology or the

pharmaceutical industry um or alphabet

which is also known as Google um do are

are some of the biggest lobbyists um in

the federal government right now this

chart is a little old um but it does

give you sort of an idea here of the top

48 Federal lobbying clients this was as

of 2015 most of these are are still

lobbying um and the top 40 Federal

donors um in different categories and so

um it sort of shows you the overlap

between different categories you

definitely don't need to remember all of

this but it is important to understand

um that different uh companies are part

of different lobbying groups um and that

they together can be part of different

the same lobbying group or different

lobbying groups um the same company can

be part of multiple lobbying groups um

and at different times they're on

different sides of particular issues so

sometimes a company is on the pro

intellectual property strong

intellectual property side and sometimes

they want weaker intellectual

property in addition to politically

based arguments and arguments based on

um what part of the government is

involved in uh the intellectual property

being issued there are some other

negative arguments that we want to talk

about first in the category of

disadvantages are innovation disad vage

or link turns if the affirmative has an

innovation Advantage the negative can

link turn that Advantage by saying

actually um instead of helping

Innovation you harm Innovation you make

Innovation worse um similarly if the

affirmative doesn't have an innovation

Advantage the negative can just read

that as a disadvantage um there are

economics and inflation based arguments

that say that increasing protection of

intellectual property would hurt the

economy hurt um certain kinds of

businesses which would cause um problems

for the economy whether that's inflation

or um you know difficulties in in other

areas um there are certainly industry

disadvantages so for example the

affirmative that would require licensing

for uh generative artificial

intelligence that uh would be strongly

opposed by the artificial intelligence

industry um and so you can read a

disadvantages based on the AI industry

there are lots of um other examples

where an industry might be disadvantaged

by stronger patent protection or

stronger copyright or trademark

protection in a particular area and so

um they would complain uh and they would

write pretty good Link cards saying that

this will destroy our industry

um there are courts based disadvantages

one of them is a court clog disadvantage

that argues that if we have more patent

or copyright protection but generally

patent protection um that that would

create a lot more lawsuits and would gum

up the courts they would not be able to

deal with other important issues because

all they'd be doing is these patent

suits based on the increased patents

that the affirmative allowed them to

provide there are other disadvantages in

that area um about you know creating

situations that the court has to resolve

um that would also be relevant um we

talked moment ago about all of the

lobbying and politics in intellectual

property and that lends itself very well

to agenda politics disadvantages that

argue um that the plan creates a

political controversy um that would

cause problems for another issue on the

agenda um those are called agenda

politics da because they're based on the

idea um that the plan hurts something

else going on on uh Biden's agenda or on

congress's agenda or maybe helps

something and that that thing is bad but

usually hurts something and that that

thing is good um finally and the

disadvantages major disadvantages areas

that apply to most affirmatives is the

2024 elections disadvantage you argue um

that a particular candidate um is going

to win the election now and that the

plan would cause um the public to swing

in a different direction um which is bad

um so that is a very common disadvantage

on this

topic there are also some counter plans

um one is separation of powers based

counter plans that means if the plan has

um the Congress do something the counter

plan could have the court do it or have

um part of the executive do it and argue

that Congress doing it would be bad

similarly if the affirmative has the

court do something you could argue um

that Congress or the executive could do

it instead um and that the court doing

it would be bad so those are separations

of powers based counter plans there are

also some proposals that suggest that

instead of dealing with in intellectual

property at the country level we should

be dealing with it multilaterally

meaning internationally um in

multilateral groups whether that's

through the World Trade Organization um

or other organizations that were part of

they should be in charge of setting um

the questions about intellectual

property and so instead of dealing with

it at the United States level at the

United States federal government level

we should have an International

Coalition to it um there are other

counter plans that say that we should

not strengthen intellectual property

rights instead we should abolish

intellectual property or we should

reform intellectual property maybe we

should not have patents at all um or

maybe we should have much weaker patent

protection um so instead of uh

establishing an increase in intellectual

property rights it would it would

decrease them um and argue that they are

bad for a variety of reasons um there

are some patent process process counter

plans that suggest that we should change

the way the patent process is done

rather than just strengthening patents

um and there are some court process

counter plans that argue um that the

process for the way things go through

the courts would be

problematic the final area to look at is

topic based critiques there are of

course lots of critiques that are um

read on every topic but the ones that

are sort of based in the concept

directly in the concept of intellectual

property um the first is unsurprisingly

a a capitalism critique any um topic

that includes the word property in the

resolution presumably um is pretty tied

to the concept of capitalism and

certainly intellectual property is very

much tied to the concept of capitalism

um there is a sort of General capitalism

critique that just argues that

capitalism in general is bad um there is

a also a racial specific capitalism

critique that argues that the way

intellectual property is deployed is

happens in along particular racial lines

that creates problems um and is is

deployed against particular groups so

those are both um versions of a

capitalism critique um another similar

but not necessarily exactly the same

critique is a colonialism critique that

argues that um intellectual property

rights are designed to protect um

particular uh privileged groups in

society and Wealthy countries against

non-wealthy countries um that we talked

in the very first video that um sort of

wealthy countries tend to want stronger

intellectual property and newly

industrializing countries or less

wealthy countries less powerful

countries um tend to want less

intellectual property rights and so this

argues that the formation of

intellectual property and the idea of

strengthening intellectual property um

comes up against problems of colonialism

and international

colonialism we've reached the end of the

three-part series on the 2024 2025

intellectual property topic I hope

everyone has a wonderful debate season

um and happy debating