Debating IP

I attended a fascinating debate yesterday evening at the RSA between John Naughton, the Observer's Internet columnist and Ron Marchant Chief Executive of the UK's Patent Office.

There was a surprising amount of common ground between the two. Both agreed that the vast ecology now covered by intellectual property is in a stormy, dynamic, unstable state, as deployment of developing technologies like the Internet undermines the traditional business models of the "content" industries such as publishing, films, broadcasting and music. Both also agreed that we have to find a way to navigate towards a new equilibrium which avoids extremist demands of abolishing IP on one hand and making it disastrously draconian on the other.

There was one fundamental difference though. Ron Marchant sees the function of the intellectual property system as primarily one of generating wealth i.e. it must provide a way for creators and inventors to generate a monetary return from their creations and improve the economy of the UK or UK PLC, as he put it. He also spoke articulately about the need for balance in the system such that the public receives a return from the temporary IP monopolies granted to commerce, inventors and creators. But UK Plc bottom line was the main driver.

John Naughton has never subscribed to the notion that the only worthwhile things in life are those that can be allocated a monetary value and Ron Marchant agreed with him on this. John, however, felt that the IP system also had to recognise these values more explicitly and more powerfully because of the impact that the vast number of things the IP system now touches has on society.

As we move towards the big launch of the new Harry Potter novel tonight, I was wondering what both men would have thought of the Canadian injunction issued by the Supreme Court of British Columbia but I never got the chance to ask the question. I'm fairly sure John would have agreed with Michael Geist. And I have a sneaking suspicion Ron Marchant would have too.