Intellectual Property Rights Topic Lecture - Part 3
Summary
TLDRThis 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
📚 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.
💡 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.
🏛️ 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.
💼 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.
Mindmap
Keywords
💡Intellectual Property
💡Generative AI
💡Copyright
💡Separation of Powers
💡Patent
💡Trademark
💡Lobbying
💡Deep Fakes
💡Indigenous Knowledge
💡Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB)
💡First to File System
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
Ver Más Videos Relacionados
5.0 / 5 (0 votes)