On intellectual property

It is interesting that monopolies are out of fashion, except where intellectual property is concerned. For intellectual property, theory goes, monopoly rights are awarded by the government to foster the innovation process that is essential for the well-being and progress of society. In the case of patents, these rights allow patent holders to recover the costs incurred in research and development and obtain exclusive economic profit generated from the invention during the length of the patent.


The current system seems to be failing to achieve its original objectives. Often, patents bring more benefits to patent holders than to society as a whole. Moreover, some have argued that extended rights to patent holders may even be hampering innovation, contradicting the very purpose for which patents were created.

Among the issues that arise from the current system is the question of why all patent holders benefit from the same monopoly rights when not all patents benefit society equally. In a fair system, rights granted to a patent seeker would be based on a patent's expected contribution to society. Specifically, the more relevant and higher the impact of the contribution, the shorter a patent would last. Although the analysis of the future benefits of a patent would be guesswork in many cases, such analysis would certainly contribute to a fairer system.

Deeper reform of the patent system should also challenge the foundations of the system: Do we really need to grant monopolies to foster innovation?

The system, originated a century ago, has remained unchanged since then, although society has evolved significantly. In particular, the ability to share and communicate knowledge has improved dramatically. On the one hand, this ability has made the rights awarded to patent holders extremely restrictive, at a time when contributions to patented inventions would be easier than ever and would greatly enrich the innovation process. On the other, it has weakened the argument of those who maintain that the innovation process will suffer if patent rights cease to exist, as increased knowledge sharing has been a major accelerator of creativity and innovation.

The argument against granting monopoly rights to patent holders is further strengthened when one considers that innovation is by no means a structured process. On the contrary, innovation occurs spontaneously, and it is difficult to replicate. The unique conditions under which innovation takes place gives the innovator an unrivalled advantage over any copycat. Also, a lack of monopoly rights would also ensure more efficient resource allocation on the side of innovators, increasing the success rate of the process.

The patent system will not change in the short term. However, society and government must bear in mind that the current system may be having undesirable consequences for the innovation process. Chiefly, excessive rights given to the innovator is robbing the rest of society from potential rewards of innovation. If the aim is social progress, a system that does not grant monopoly rights should be given a chance.