The need for intellectual property rights is undeniable. They promote research and innovation, encourage and protect investment, and ensure that our scientists, artists and inventors receive a just reward for their dedication and creativity.
Human Knowledge is the heritage and property of all humankind and the reservoir from which new knowledge is c reated. The primary goal of patents, copyright and trademarks, and other legal and technical monopolies on knowledge granted by society, must be to ensure maximum use of this knowledge and to encourage creativity as widely as possible within society. International agreements and treaties, and national policies concerning creation, sharing and trade of intellectual goods and cultural creations should be aligned according to those principles.
With the dramatic rise in Internet use, especially for e-commerce and information and knowledge exchange, the intellectual property system becomes crucial for the orderly development of the digital society. In turn, the Internet poses many opportunities as well as complex challenges for the intellectual property community.
Countries must ensure that the rights of creators and owners of intellectual property are protected worldwide and that inventors and authors are, thus, recognized and rewarded for their ingenuity. This international protection acts as a spur to human creativity, pushing forward the boundaries of science and technology and enriching the world of literature and the arts. By providing a stable environment for the marketing of intellectual property products, it also oils the wheels of international trade.
These are my personal views pertaining to the topic above. Rebukes are more than welcome; I would like to see the views of other on this increasingly important and influential matter.
I think there is a problem with the accuracy of this article, primarily as regards the following passages:
This notion is more commonly referred to as "intellectual property", though "intellectual rights" more aptly describes the nature of the protections afforded by most nations.
In my opinion the article should explain why the one term is supposedly more 'apt' than the other, and according to whom.
Both terms were used in Europe during the 19th century as a means of distinguishing between two different views of intellectual protection. "Intellectual property" was generally used to advocate a belief that copyrights and patents should provide rights akin to physical property rights. The term "intellectual rights" was used by those who felt that such protection should take the form of temporary, limited grants.
This passage tries to elaborate on two different views on intellectual property rights (I use this term because it is the most commonly used) that supposedly existed in Europe during the 19th century. In my opinion this is too vague as both 'in Europe' and 'in the 19th century' fail to indicate the scale of prevalence of this difference in views. What are we talking about? Organised interest groups with thousands of members represented in European countries from Spain to Finland, active from 1840 until well into the 20th century? Or are we talking about two people in 1801 in Paris who shared these different views and then forgot all about it? (the exaggeration is to illustrate) If the latter, the whole story would become quite less relevant to merit a mention in this encyclopedia. The same issue arises where the article talks about '20th century Europe'. We are talking about an era here spanning from before the first human flight and the Russian revolution until after the advent of internet and the collapse of the Soviet Union, not to mention the geographical span.
Furthermore, the difference in views itself is not clear. The 'belief that copyrights and patents should provide rights akin to physical property rights' and the belief 'that such protection should take the form of temporary, limited grants' were supposedly opposed to each other. On first view however, it seems that a 'right akin to physical property rights' could just as well be 'temporary' and 'limited'. I think the article should be more clear on the exact nature of the differences between the two points of view.
Another issue is the use of the word 'modern'. What is meant by it?