College Policy Debate Forums
November 19, 2017, 03:17:29 PM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?

Login with username, password and session length
News: IF YOU EXPERIENCE PROBLEMS WITH THE SITE, INCLUDING LOGGING IN, PLEASE LET ME KNOW IMMEDIATELY.  EMAIL ME DIRECTLY OR USE THE CONTACT US LINK AT THE TOP.
 
   Home   Help Search Login Register CEDA caselist Debate Results Council of Tournament Directors Edebate Archive  
Pages: [1]
  Print  
Author Topic: Patents Controversy Paper  (Read 5951 times)
japoapst
Newbie
*
Posts: 25


« on: April 22, 2013, 08:49:12 PM »

Attached.

  Smiley

* IP Paper-Jackie Poapst.docx (218.69 KB - downloaded 2209 times.)
Logged
japoapst
Newbie
*
Posts: 25


« Reply #1 on: April 25, 2013, 04:28:32 PM »

I just wanted to invite people to start some thread discussion. I would love to have some discussion about the paper, so feel free.
Logged
Ryan Galloway
Full Member
***
Posts: 119


« Reply #2 on: April 25, 2013, 07:35:25 PM »

I'll jump in--I think this is a great paper with well balanced AFF & NEG ground.  I'm a little worried the AFF advantages might get a tad stale as they would be different industries arguing the same hurdles to success--which means the debates might be a bit similar.

That small issue aside, I think you present a well-defined legal controversy with good advantage and disad ground for both sides.  People should give patents another look and not be intimidated by the subject matter.

Well done to Jackie and the GMU crew!

RG
Logged
PHayes
Newbie
*
Posts: 32


« Reply #3 on: April 26, 2013, 11:49:55 AM »

I like IP as a legal topic.*   Thank you for submitting the paper.  Given that we’re going to debate a legal topic at least once every four years (and the concerns that seems to raise), I think it’s worth our time to think this one through and provide feedback for future years if not this one.

Why I like IP - It’s important and timely, but not moving so quickly the literature isn’t somewhat stable.  The topic raises an interesting mix of economic, cultural, social and critical debates revolving around the notion and process of “owning”, inter alia, an idea or concept  In addition to the cites provided in the paper, see, e.g., digitalcommons.wcl.american.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1040&context=jgspl (“IP rights are inextricably tied to cultural and scientific production, which influences all aspects of society …  it exists in a cultural battleground of hegemony, social dominance, and resistance.”), http://www.dklevine.org/archive/ittheory.pdf (“Non-utilitarian theories of intellectual property have proliferated in recent years, as philosophers and legal scholars have applied traditional and novel philosophical perspectives to the realm of intellectual property.”), http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1747-9991.2010.00358.x/abstract (“A large body of contemporary philosophical and interdisciplinary literature suggests that intellectual property rights give rise to a number of ethical problems.”)
 
My concern with the particular approach in this paper is that some of the proposed stems and advantage areas seem narrow.  My instinct is that if we’re going to debate IP, we should engage more broadly.  This includes greater breadth as regards the mechanisms (enforcement/infringement/International Trade Commission determinations, intersection with antitrust laws, etc.), as well as the IP subject matter. 

In particular, my instinct is that we should also include trademarks and copyrights because it diversifies the discussion to include issues that are more social and cultural, as opposed to the predominantly economic issues raised by patent reform. See, e.g., http://digitalcommons.wcl.american.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1040&context=jgspl (“the principles of trademark law provide surprising insight into the formation of dichotomous racial classifications in the United States.”52 Trademark law is inextricably tied to advertising and marketing. As Desiree Kennedy pointed out, advertising “is an important means of public discourse . . . [and] . . . is instrumental in affecting viewers’ perceptions of their world and their interactions with others.”53Further, Lew Gibbons noted, modern trademarks play  a large role in shaping “individual and group social identity.”), http://racism.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=1446:legaltreatmentdigitalsampling&catid=55&Itemid=178&showall=1&limitstart= (“In spite of the rich tradition of borrowing exemplified in a wide variety of art forms, and the benefits of sampling within hip-hop specifically, the copyright system continues to misinterpret the nature and goals of using digital technology to reinterpret existing sources. As a result, American courts create legally binding hierarchies of cultural forms that marginalize artists who borrow openly. Such cultural regulation is made even more troubling by the racial undertones underlying the copyright system's failure to recognize digital sampling as a valid art form.”)

That said, I lean towards broad topics.  The breadth I’m suggesting may raise concerns, and I know some scholars reject altogether the notion of an “intellectual property umbrella” that includes these three different types of rights.  (In my view, one common thread between the three is the notion of imposing the economic concept of scarcity onto an idea, image or concept that can be reproduced at no cost to the original owner, regardless of whether it’s a formula, a brand or an image of a “Washington Redskin,” whatever that is.)

I hate it when people don’t make concrete suggestions, so I’ll throw one out  (while admitting it’s half-baked):  The USFG should substantially reform the patent, copyright and/or trademark system(s) in order to decrease [the scope of / enforcement of] intellectual property rights in the United States.  I like “decrease” for directionality because my hunch is that the best uniqueness lies in this direction.  See e.g., http://www.wipo.int/edocs/mdocs/tk/en/wipo_unhchr_ip_pnl_98/wipo_unhchr_ip_pnl_98_1.pdf (“One striking feature of intellectual property is that, despite its early historical links to the idea of monopoly and privilege, the scope of its subject matter continues to expand. The twentieth century has
seen new or existing subject matter added to present intellectual property systems (for example, the protection of computer software as part of copyright, the patentability of micro-organisms as part of patent law), and new systems created to protect existing or new subject matter (for example, plant variety protection and circuit layouts). The strongly expansionary nature of intellectual property systems shows no sign of changing.”) 

I also like it  because it opens the topic to people who want to negate USFG action on the Aff.  The core limits for such a topic would be the types of IP that are included, as well as the directionality imposed by “decrease … intellectual property rights,” although I freely admit more homework would need to be done on all of this. 
 
*Footnote - Assuming “legal” doesn’t mean that the court need be the actor, I’m not really sure where the line is between legal and nonlegal topics.  As we all know, most all topics involve legal reform.  For me, the line involves the extent to which I think the debates would reflect the relevant *legal* literature.  IP qualifies under this test, but war powers is probably a “no” as a legal topic in my view, although I like the area and paper.
Logged
japoapst
Newbie
*
Posts: 25


« Reply #4 on: April 26, 2013, 01:31:10 PM »

Great replies Ryan and Paul. Thanks for starting some discussion. I am going to give a quick thought overview and do some research and post a better reply on Monday. The Mason team will be at Dr. Decker's farm (and, of course, he doesn't have internet) so the response unfortunately will not come before that point.

I think both of your concerns have similar issues (too limited). I honestly thought the complete opposite while writing this paper, which is why I suggested in the author comments that we could provide a list for industry sectors.

Everything gets a patent, so I think the concern Paul raises may not be too problematic. Ultimately, however, I chose eligibility standards because that is the best route for the literature. In the author suggestion, I said that eligibility standards also apply for copyright - so we could open it up there.

Ryan, I don't think we have to be as concerned about the mechanism making debate stale either. Immigration had the same mechanism, so did many previous topics. Ultimately, you don't just get "reduce patent eligibility" internals, but trade internals, relations, generic ip reform, etc...

Like I said, I will apply more in depth on Monday, but feel free to keep this up without me!

Jackie
Logged
Adam Symonds
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 349


« Reply #5 on: April 26, 2013, 02:51:32 PM »


Ryan, I don't think we have to be as concerned about the mechanism making debate stale either. Immigration had the same mechanism, so did many previous topics. Ultimately, you don't just get "reduce patent eligibility" internals, but trade internals, relations, generic ip reform, etc...

Like I said, I will apply more in depth on Monday, but feel free to keep this up without me!

Great stuff in this topic paper. I do echo the concerns of Ryan and Paul, however, regarding the narrow/stale nature of the topic. I agree Immigration is a good analogy, but that makes me more worried, not less. Immigration started with a much broader controversy and only became narrow through the visas wording winning. And I actually think that resolution was broader than this controversy. The IP paper looks like the visas topic without human trafficking: a lot of mechanisms for sector specific innovations which result in the same set of science/tech/econ impacts for virtually all affs.

The move to controversy papers has been great for maintaining fidelity between the initial topic area and the final wordings. But one lesson that we should keep in mind from the topic committee: controversies will only become more narrow through the wording process. Energy, Democracy Assistance, Immigration, Nukes, Ag, etc., these all became smaller in the wording process. The general lesson seems to be that if the controversy looks narrow now, it will be quite small 6 weeks from now after the topic meeting. I think this should encourage us to start much broader in scope - if for no other reason than to provide real options.


Logged
Jessica Kurr
Jr. Member
**
Posts: 89


« Reply #6 on: April 26, 2013, 03:59:58 PM »

The IP paper looks like the visas topic without human trafficking: a lot of mechanisms for sector specific innovations which result in the same set of science/tech/econ impacts for virtually all affs.

What topics do not have this problem?

Nukes - Probably the most diverse, but Accidents, Russia/China conflict/deterrence, and NPT/other-agreements all spanned multiple affs.

Immigration - Agreed

MENA - US presence in Libya/Tunisia/Egypt is key to African/Middle-Eastern stability either a) projection or b) specific country stability.  Half dozen different ways to send assistance to those countries. Bahrain/Yemen formed a similar group, as did Syria. .

Energy - Manufacturing/Competitiveness, Warming, Tech Leadership, Grid were all debated by an array of affs.

In short, it seems the main issue illustrated is a large number of teams will say X industry key to economy. That seems like a poor decision to me by the aff. Teams that are smart will claim industry specific advantages. Biotech/pharmaceuticals, computer hardware/software, environmental-based engineering, and generic copyright protections all have diverse area grounds (bioterror, tech development for military, environmental protection, trade). 
Logged
Adam Symonds
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 349


« Reply #7 on: April 26, 2013, 05:48:24 PM »

Not sure what you are getting at here, Jeff, but yes, most of the topics lately have been very narrow in aff advantage ground because of the mechanism selected. Energy and Nukes were more diverse than any of the other topics you listed. The problem is not simply debater choice, it's topic construction shaping the strategic debater choices. Why vote for a topic if you know from the outset it's going to have the same problem?

And sure, good affs will have sector specific advantages, but the crux of all of them is the relationship between patents, innovation, and markets. This is why I think the list of biotech, computers, and engineering you name above remains narrow and limited.
« Last Edit: April 26, 2013, 05:50:39 PM by Adam Symonds » Logged
Jessica Kurr
Jr. Member
**
Posts: 89


« Reply #8 on: April 26, 2013, 07:01:00 PM »

It seems your concern is the ability for the neg to target the "patents dont lead to innovation" style of arguments. I interpret that worry as "there is a generic negative solvency argument." There are generic arguments and linkages on all topics. Even the affs on nukes were commonly tied to NPR/QDR CPs, the deterrence DA, and/or conventional shift. I disagree that the Energy topic was that diverse, as they essentially relied on the same crux you just described. Hence the large number of military affs to counter that crux.

My point is that I don't believe that the criticism you put forth, that "the crux of all of them is the relationship between patents, innovation, and markets," is unique in anyway to patents. It seems you can make a similar criticism on any of the topic papers. You could argue that definitions and treaties do not apply in this case. However, I would more worried about a topic in which there is a lack of crossover between any of the affs aside from the capacity to read the Court CP or CEA CP.

I'm wondering why you think patents isn't a happy medium of diversity/narrowness when compared to the other topic papers? Treaties and federal definitions seem very broad; democracy is also broad but for its own reasons. War powers and arms sales seem on par with how narrow patents is.
Logged
Adam Symonds
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 349


« Reply #9 on: April 26, 2013, 11:57:37 PM »

It seems your concern is the ability for the neg to target the "patents dont lead to innovation" style of arguments. I interpret that worry as "there is a generic negative solvency argument." There are generic arguments and linkages on all topics. Even the affs on nukes were commonly tied to NPR/QDR CPs, the deterrence DA, and/or conventional shift. I disagree that the Energy topic was that diverse, as they essentially relied on the same crux you just described. Hence the large number of military affs to counter that crux.

You can interpret however you want, I guess, but my point was simply what I said: it's narrow and stale because every area is tied to whether or not patents spur or prevent market innovation. I am not worried about the negative solvency argument.

My point is that I don't believe that the criticism you put forth, that "the crux of all of them is the relationship between patents, innovation, and markets," is unique in anyway to patents. It seems you can make a similar criticism on any of the topic papers. You could argue that definitions and treaties do not apply in this case. However, I would more worried about a topic in which there is a lack of crossover between any of the affs aside from the capacity to read the Court CP or CEA CP.

I agree with you that Definitions and Treaties are not vulnerable to the charge of staleness. This negates your statement that it applies to all topics. "Lack of crossover" is an illusion and a crutch for topic thought. Not sure if you noticed, but energy was a broad topic that did not have any more crossover than definitions would. The statement that the US should increase energy production was not actually controversial -- almost everyone agrees. The debate instead was over what type of energy.

Definitions is analogous, as the debates are over the question "what should our definitions be?" Sure, there is no general set of literature for "the way the FG defines all its terms now is awesome," but that is not the essential characteristic of controversy. Instead, it is whether or not there are robust responses to advocates of change (with either defenses of the sq or defenses of different forms of changes).

(As an aside, I don't agree with the claim that there is no "core" or "crossover" ground on definitions, nor do I think definitions is "too broad")

I'm wondering why you think patents isn't a happy medium of diversity/narrowness when compared to the other topic papers? Treaties and federal definitions seem very broad; democracy is also broad but for its own reasons. War powers and arms sales seem on par with how narrow patents is.

I don't think it's a happy medium because no matter how many cool areas you describe can be accessed, the internal link will always be "we innovate x industry by removing patents." Most every policy debate will feature a strategy regarding the best way to innovate... just like the visa topic was a bunch of different ways to let in high skilled immigrants who would boost (specific sectors of or generally) the economy.

Even if I accepted the premise that patents was a happy balance between diversity/narrowness, as I stated above, I think we're foolhardy to believe that the topic will stay the size it is now. It will become narrower in the topic wording process, inevitably. We are better off with a broader controversy such that the fidelity of the topic committee to the controversy paper does not become a barrier to the wordings making sense with the literature (a la democracy assistance).

Logged
japoapst
Newbie
*
Posts: 25


« Reply #10 on: April 28, 2013, 07:18:43 PM »

Hi Adam,
Thanks for the debate on this thread. While I understand the concerns that you echo, I don't necessarily agree.

Patents deal with everything. I've mentioned this before, but I think this fear over not having creative advantage ground is a little silly. Even the argument that most advantage ground still deals with industry innovation is first, not necessarily true. You get relations links with countries that we trade with (no guarantee it's great, because I just skimmed the first paragraph or two, http://www.ccianet.org/CCIA/files/ccLibraryFiles/Filename/000000000246/Borras-Kahin.pdf),
perception advantages other than economy (that one's an obvious one) such as international trade, pharmaceutical generics (not innovation based - simply market based, http://www.oxfam.org/sites/www.oxfam.org/files/international-aids-conference-oxfam-media-brief-july2012.pdf), etc. That is not even delving into the court affirmative potential on this type of legal topic, which allows a ton of creativity.

Second, of course debates will be about patents and the market. I don't really understand why this is a negative to this controversy? Every nuclear aff on the nuclear weapons topic talked about weapons and some sort of deterrence theory (makes sense because nuclear weapons are a topic about a deterrence mechanism), Every agricultural aff had something to do with market mechanism because that was the way the subsidy debate worked as well. Every Immigration aff had something to do with people getting visas and that being a good thing. Same thing with democracy assistance - core debate was that assistance solved.
So I don't really understand why it is such a bad thing that affirmatives will have to engage in the "patents solve/don't solve" debate.

Yes, debates about innovation will be common, but they will not be stale. There are innovative ways to talk about innovation (see what I did there Wink You get patent troll advantages, country modeling advantages, litigation tradeoff advantages (patent troll cases consume over 60 percent of patent cases - overwhelming patent courts), backlog advantages, specific sector good advantages - Jeff gave a great defense of this in his post of which I will echo my support. There are tons of industries in the US. The reason I chose to include the recommended wording of "standards of eligibility" was because if you just let affirmatives deal with any part of the patent process this topic would have been unpredictably broad. In the end, even if innovation disads/defense is a core generic negative position, wasn't that what so many of the posters were calling for before the controversies were posted?

Also, you mentioned concern over the immigration comparison as it being that topic "without trafficking" - I don't think that concern is valid. The second part of my suggested wording provides better critical ground than trafficking ever could. Eliminating the amount of patents issued means an affirmative could eliminate all issued patents and say patent system bad - broadens things up a bit and gives some sweet critical aff ground.

I think I am going to end my post here, but will include one short response to the committee's "topic fidelity" argument from controversies - thus why controversies should be broader. That's exactly why we don't need to worry in this instance. For example, on the democracy assistance topic, despite many people fighting for a different solvency mechanism - the one suggested in the topic paper was the one on the resolution slate. In this instance, standards of eligibility is actually in the literature and gives good solvency ground so there won't be as much fighting about bad wording - and it narrows the topic enough that there really isn't much else that could be narrowed. There is a big difference between a committee faced with an international topic that must choose countries and  a topic like this one - where that work has already been done.

-Jackie
Logged
Pages: [1]
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines
SMF customization services by 2by2host.com
Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!