Economic and Social Merits of Intellectual Property Abstract: Intellectual property rights (IPR) are subjects of debate worldwide.

Infringers lobby for less protection and more radical free market economics, wherein the state has virtually no control over trade conditions. Mainstream economists generally recognize that IPRs provide incentive for innovation, which leads to growth and development. Various statutes and treaties on intellectual property validate its legal legitimacy, although its detractors are not silent. In this article, opposing viewpoints on the merits of IP are examined. A sect of libertarians provides negative arguments which are analyzed for their contradictory and fallacious elements. Proponents of IP are backed by Ayn Rands libertarianism, international agreements, economic theory and business interests. IP is positioned as an economic right and thus a human right. Market harmony is found possible through more acceptance of and respect for IPRs. Introduction Intellectual property (IP) law exists largely because of compelling economic argument in favor of IP being a form of property, and for protection of those intellectual property rights (IPR). The bridge is axiomatic which connects economics with physical sciences involved in the creation of patents, and other disciplines used in generation of trademarks, copyrights and related rights. Validation of theories may elicit subjectivity but the case for IPRs is generally more associated with the objective absolutism of physical sciences than what we see in other fields of civil and criminal law. As such, IPRs have gained some unanimous recognition, and consensus has formed in trade law that IP is essential to motivate and reward innovation and development. Interdisciplinary efforts are integral to supporting and reinforcing IPR theory at academic and professional levels. Theoretically, the idea of IP itself is one that transcends various institutions and philosophies, requiring public and private partnerships dependent upon parallel thinking between lawyers, economists, engineers, doctors, scientists, artists, musicians, and a wide array of workers in other disciplines. At the macro level, if IP theory is to ultimately succeed internationally, harmonization policies and outlooks is necessary.

Today, we see constrained success of IP law in the global market. Alongside that is widespread approval of the argument opposing IPRs. This article first presents cultural and historical aspects of IPRs, followed by the influence of IP on world trade. Opposing viewpoints on the merits of IP are then examined. A sect of libertarians such as Stephen Kinsella and scholars at the Mises Institute provide the negative arguments which are analyzed for their contradictory and fallacious elements. Ayn Rands libertarianism, by contrast, supports broad protection of IPRs. Proponents of IP are backed by international agreements, economic theory and business interests. IP is positioned as an economic right and thus a human right. A legal positivist approach justifies statutes and treaties, which retain authority in spite of counterpoints. Conclusions indicate that strong IPRs can be mutually beneficial to consumers and innovators. World Cultures and Intellectual Property IP law, like many aspects of international trade law and modern economics, may seem as compound functions of predominantly Western interests rather than of a more heterogeneous, comprehensive and inclusive nature. Social philosophies reminiscent of the Scottish Enlightenment and classical period of economics are still present in capitalist ideology although neither Smiths time are vividly unimaginable to most people living in this age. Despite the flak that ber-traditionalists encounter, their ways persist through time. Nobel Laureate Joseph Stiglitz (2007) said about his research regarding how market economies deal with information and knowledge, what was clear is that the standard paradigms of well-functioning markets solving the problemsAdam Smiths invisible handjust didnt work Stiglitz showed in one of his papers on the topic, the reason that the invisible hand often seemed invisiblewas that it wasnt there Stiglitz used these statements to oppose specific intellectual property agreements, but what stands out most about his complaint of the classical economic view is that he

acknowledged our change in economic paradigm from those times of overt racism, when man raped, pillaged and plundered his way to riches. Regardless of shortcomings and abuses through that part of history, some characteristics were carried forward, providing latter footholds for growth and solid foundations of institutions. Theories not of the laboratory sciences are almost always doomed to fail over time, and those buttressing the current model are not likely exceptions, but their influence and effects are not as easily mutable as their popularity. Friedman (1953) argued that assumptions underlying economic theories are never realistic in practice. The fact that our present system contains inherent flaws does not indicate it is somehow obsolete or doomed to soon be. Likely, though, is that we will experience economic ebb and flow, boom and bust markets and business cycles through to a new era in the dismal science, perhaps culminating with the much-awaited next paradigm shift. Nonetheless, some pieces of historical systems will proceed forward following the purge, and IPRs are most probably in that less perishable heap. History of IP Historically, a host of schisms and schools of thought made up the epistemological framework for IPRs. Origins of IP law may be 13th century Europe, though these first grants of rights would have been of a primitive form even compared to those in the early American Constitutional period. The 1883 Paris Convention and 1886 Berne Convention ushered in a new era of public commitment among nations toward upholding principles that previously existed domestically for hundreds of years. Names like Locke, Paine, Fichte, and Kant are oft cited when discussing theories of IP, as are isms like utilitarianism, consequentialism, capitalism, socialism, and communism (Caslon Analytics, 2002; Waldron, 2004). Broader Support of Modern IPRs Once established as property rights like those related to fixed, tangible, immovable and moveable physical matter, IPRs are supported by religious doctrines. Both Catholic and

Protestant sects of Christianity support the Jedeo-Christian Seventh Commandment, which protect rights to private property (Holy Bible, NKJV; The Holy See, n.d.). The Vatican recognizes and respects intellectual property rights as a member of WIPO (Foley, 2002). Sharia law recognizes private property rights, and Muslim states are compelled through the Quran to protect those rights, though the Muslim abstract concept of ownership may be slightly different from English common law definitions (Jamar, 1992). The five moral precepts of Buddhism include proscription of stealing, or a protection of private property rights. Asteya is one of ten disciplines in Hinduism which teaches against stealing, and thus protects private property rights. Culture and Information Ethics Until the advent of internet technology, deontological ethical argument developed rather slowly, with the official majority view being that property rights both over physical tangible and immaterial intellectual properties were embedded in any functional social, economic, or governing system. Currently, in general, nations are not so out of tune with others that harmonization cannot be said to exist. However, any consensus or unanimity is present only in legislative branches, whereas executives and judiciaries worldwide have not exhibited as uniform a commitment to enforcing and adjudicating the harmonized laws. Since 1990s there has been rapid growth in the number of people and research articles discussing information ethics. Increasing publication on the subject is also evidence of increasing interest. Growth in world trade, the inauguration of the World Trade Organization, increased access to education, general market growth and other related factors have together made information technology (IT) ethical issues part of the daily life of billions of people. Being such an integral part of our daily work, home, and social lives, people view IT ethical issues as important (Peslak, 2007).

Perceptions regarding IP and ethical use of technology vary worldwide (Phukan & Dhillon, 2001). Culture has been an important factor in perceptions of IPRs, and of the appropriateness of enforcement and of compliance with a given set of laws. Hofstedes cultural dimensions have been used to explain a variety of business and trade-related differences among different nationalities of people, IPRs included. For example, so-called individualist and collectivist cultures have been shown to value IPRs differently (Lee & Workman, 2011). Critics of Hofstedes 1970s study, which included analysis of over 116,000 questionnaires from over 60,000 IBM employees in over 50 countries, argue that it may not be relevant in the new millennium, and may have never been a reliable source of information regarding entire nations of people, which are not as homogenous as the research suggested. Further methodological complaints include the sample selection since IBMers are not the average Joe in any society. Besides, due to differences between cognition and behavior, self-reporting surveys alone are not always accurate and reliable among a group (Jones, 2007; McSweeney, 2002). Hofstedes model may help support reasons for why people think as they do, but we must also conclude that if some behavior is prohibited in written law then such a behavior is also culturally undesirable. In other words, if a democratic nation has promulgated a law then that law is supported by the culture. If a culture or a subculture is decidedly opposed to a law, then the law takes precedent in official matters until such a time that the law is repealed. Cultural rationalization for legal violation is not an adequate defense. The culture motive for IP infringement does not establish any external validity, nor does such justification invalidate the law or its jurisdiction. Development Issues Anti-IPR ideology has long existed in the individualist American world, yet the USA provides some of the harshest penalties in the world for IPR infringement. In the 19th century,

the United States was notorious for copyright piracy, which was considered a development issue (Khan, 2002). The USA did eventually undertake to engage in international conventions and protect foreign works along with domestic ones. Thomas Jeffersons famous 1813 quote that inventions then cannot, in nature, be a subject of property has long since been considered incorrect. Copyright piracy is still considered a development issue by some people, though the enormous scale of infringing activity online and via optical discs is hardly similar to the miniscule volumes of print offenses in the 1800s. Legitimate literature consistently concludes that to usurp the economic and or moral rights of another is simply unethical and in many cases illegal, which nullifies most dissenting opinions. Business ethics infrastructure is not a debate team which crafts arguments against IPR enforcement, licensing, definitions of fairuse, and payment of royalties, but is instead a compliance office which attempts to direct the organization toward legal and ethical operations, which in turn theoretically reduces risks, costs, and liabilities (US Department of Commerce International Trade Commission, 2004). Like Jeffersons unruly two-centuries old quote, the popular hackers motto, information wants to be free has simply been quashed by the law and interests of IPR proprietors (Wagner, 2003). Internationally we see a growing debate against IPRs in whole or in part made by entities and persons from private sectors, but those arguments do not abrogate domestic laws or international treaties on IPRs. Developing nations or collectivist theories that inventions are public goods where cultural esteem rather than material gain serves as the incentive for creativity (Steidlmeier, 1993) do not preclude the rights of IPR owners or holders to file suit against infringers under the law as we saw clearly in Cisco v. Huawei (2003). IP and World Trade

The World Economic Forum (WEF, 2010-2011) concluded that IPR protection is a fundamental concern in investment decisions leading to R&D spending and innovation. Nations with strong IPRs see comparative and competitive advantages in high-tech and cutting edge products and processes, in academic and research institutions, in technical literature, and in creative arts. In its World Competitiveness Report, WEF listed IP protection in the 1st pillar (institutions) and 12th pillar (innovation). Competitiveness rankings of nations in the report closely followed the level of IPR protection in the nation. For example, Singapore was the highest ranked global competitor nation in Asia, and third worldwide, due in large part to its focus on innovation and thus IPR protection. Economic measures like GDP per capita and growth are associated with IP indicators like patent and trademark applications. Between 2006 and 2009, the top 8 nations or unions in patent filings in order were USA, Japan, China, Korea, EU, Germany, Russia, and India, where China had the highest growth in the period (WIPO, 2010). The combine share of the top five offices was 76.2% in 2008, adding to the fact that high-income economies hold a greater share of total patent applications than of world GDP. All of the top 50 Patent Cooperation Treaty (PCT, 1970) applicant companies in 2009 were from Europe, the USA, China, Korea, and Japan. US universities held the top spot with the most 2009 PCT applications in the university sector, while Japanese, Korean, Israeli, UK, Swiss, Canadian, Singaporean, and Australian universities also filed 29 or more in the year. Trends in trademark applications and registrations similarly follow GDP growth and volume. China, USA, India, Japan, EU, Brazil, Korea, Germany, and Australia made up the top batch in total trademarks or growth. All of the top 50 Madrid System applicant brands were from China, USA, Europe, Japan, and Russia (Madrid Agreement, 1891; WIPO, 2010). Licensing is big money worldwide and OECD nations do have a large interest in protecting IPRs because of the value of licenses to their economies. Between 2003 and 2008,

the value of royalties and licenses in service exports from G7 nations rose 13.7% while the value of royalties and licenses in service imports rose only 9.3%. In 2008, royalties and licensing fees made up 7.3% of OECD exports and 6.9% of imports, helping the group post a positive current account in services (OECD, 2010). Developing and third world nations can and do benefit from IPR protection, including that of foreign IP. For example, between 1995 and 2004, ASEAN nations received nearly 220 billion USD in foreign direct investment (FDI), with nearly half going to Singapore which has the highest IPR protection standards in the region (ASEAN, 2004). The same trend continued between 2004 and 2008 when ASEAN inflows totaled nearly 260 billion USD, with Singapore, Thailand, Vietnam, Indonesia, and Malaysia collecting about 95%. Top 20 sources of FDI between 2006 and 2008 included EU, Japan, USA, Korea, Hong Kong, Taiwan, China and Australia suggesting inflows of high-tech and capital products and services not native to most of the region (ASEAN, 2009). Piracy & Counterfeiting There are, of course, counterpoints to the argument in favor of protecting IPRs. The retail sector can increase profitability without paying licensing fees, and infringement can leave a positive financial impact at the point of sale. The ICC estimates that counterfeiting and piracy accounts for 5-7% of international trade (ICC Commercial Crime Services, 2011). Those sales provide real money to real people. However, there are significant data and theories suggesting that the economic costs of infringement, especially for SMEs, surpass the financial gains of the criminals involved in the trade (BASCAP, n.d.; UNODC, 2011). While more industrialized nations have preferred greater application of existing treaties and expansion of the IP treaty set, developing countries and consumer groups have forestalled some progress, calling for a moratorium on making new treaties, considering certain types of infringement (i.e. counterfeiting and piracy, compulsory licensing) and

government ignorance thereof part of a development agenda (Helfer, 2009). Both sides have valid arguments within their mutually exclusive models and worldviews, but the nonenforcement development agenda appears to support legal positivism far less than the position of the wealthier IP proprietors and licensees. Concern for consumers rights and the health of those in deep poverty is clearly rational and humanitarian in nature, and the issue of compulsory licenses has been addressed by the WTO. There is also social and economic argument on the far-less gray subject of sales in safe counterfeit and pirated products (i.e. DVDs, clothing, etc.). In an economic paradigm where profit alone most often justifies risk of undertaking R&D and investment projects, companies expect their IP to be protected to the fullest extent of the law, which is generally the right explicitly granted to them in statutes. Notwithstanding the clear provisions of written laws which criminalize commercial infringement and offer civil remedies to injured parties, very often the case is that pursuit of legal victories against commercial infringers result in financial loss. The prospects of unrecoverable sunk costs in legal actions are unappealing to both private and public attorneys and thus, certain infringements in physical markets and online continue and proliferate. Piracy and counterfeiting are topics of research in themselves that require far greater inquiry than what can be presented within the scope of this article. For now we can conclude that the majority of economists favor IPRs, and while it is not impossible that the majority is wrong, it is improbable that the experts would be so erred. Even in the event of total miscalculation by the academics, theorists, advisors and other professionals on this issue, the legal framework is valid and generally prohibits infringement. Lawyers with some scruples shall then most often favor obedience to the law and promotion of lawful behavior. Against Intellectual Property: Postmodern Libertarian Conjecture

Arguments against intellectual property in general, those relating to enforcement or of abolition of only certain IPRs, can be persuasive as they have been crafted using powerful knowledge and theory. Such arguments are also highly accessible. People around the world can attend an on-demand online streaming video seminar from the Mises Institute and learn about a libertarian thesis which is not in support of the current American and growing global regime. Libertarians are said to favor property rights, including ownership of tangible immovables and movables whether homesteadable or created, and rights over the body. However, IP is considered intangible, and like their objections to laws protecting reputation and against blackmail, a prominent number of libertarians do not support IPRs (Kinsella, 2001). Followers and admirers of Ludwig von Mises and of Austrian economics may assume economics to be one branch of praxeology, which according to Rothbard is the formal implications of the fact that men use means to attain various chosen ends (Kinsella, 2011). Libertarian scholars of praxeology contend that any economic system presupposes a legal order which protects private property rights plus related rights such as contract, negotiable instruments, promissory notes and debt, etc. Contractual rights, and any financial or post-gold standard fiscal rights should be ipso facto inclusive of protection of intangibles, yet authors like Kinsella continue to speak against IP, calling its origins a conservative propaganda campaign. Such ad hoc argument rejects the legitimacy of intangible property as a form of real property, capable of having ownership. Non-recognition of IPRs contravenes a number of standing economic and legal rules. Adoption of the abolitionist opinion would require several changes to generally accepted accounting principles on depreciation and amortization, making such arguments at very least impractical. Scholarly Support for Fallacious Commentary

Notwithstanding academic and professional origins of certain libertarians anti-IP philosophy, its logic appears self-contradictory. Considering that American university professors are more financially privileged than not, their condescension on this issue is somewhat of a mutiny against their own class, a self-defeating strategy. A message communicated suggests opponents of IP are denying that the economic order which they have significantly benefitted from presupposes the associated pro-IP legal order, or that the legal and economic orders are inseparable as was previously claimed. Kinsella, a patent attorney who argues against IP, is not only ironic in his delivery, but takes a leadership position that is impossible to follow without losing objectivity. Origins of fallacious arguments emanating from esteemed academic institutions in the first world are not limited to the Mises Institute. Instead, a great deal of American academia has been muddling around with its IP ethics ideology much in the same fashion as it has been forestalling legal positivist action intended to eliminate performance-enhancing drug use in NCAA programs, among other compliance and transparency initiatives. In 2011, the Authors Guild and other rights organizations filed suit against the University of Michigan, HathiTrust, and four other universities over storage and use of millions of copyright-protected books (Authors Guild, 2011). In 2008, the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA) sent pre-litigation settlement letters to 18 American universities regarding copyright infringement on campus networks (RIAA, 2008). Montana State University estimated more than 20,000 copyright infringement cases since the early 2000s involved college and university students, many of which retrieved infringing content via university networks in housing or computer labs under lax campus enforcement policies (MSU, 2011). Universities publicly display policies against infringement and in support of laws, but behavior and cognition again have distinctly separate qualities. A multitude of academic articles have been published since the turn of the century in favor of online

infringement and against enforcement, many with faculty and university support. Perhaps academic freedom now includes rights to commit and endorse crimes. Daniel DAmico (2011) of Loyola University in New Orleans, a purported expert on IPRs, opened a 2011 Cato Institute lecture by admitting to online copyright crimes. He prefaced his confession of thievery with a comment about how he thought people over the age of 45 should have their rights to speak about IPRs revoked because such old people do not download and infringe online enough to understand IPRs. These uses of non sequitur in the speech did not appear as much of mere opening jokes as they did seem parts of his genuine intellectual arguments. DAmico thereafter presented an eloquent academic libertarian argument against IPRs consisting primarily of ignoratio elenchi and youthoriented argumentum ad populum fallacies which are particularly persuasive in political discourse. Like most criminals, DAmicos ignorance of the counterpoint invalidated the bulk of his arguments and exposed crucial flaws of these so-called libertarian doctrines. Despite contrarian university faculty and student support for abolition of IP laws, or non-enforcement of laws and therefore de facto abolition, and for rights to infringe online, the laws and supporting reasons for protection stand. As the world saw with the mortgage fraud and Ponzi scheme epidemic that led to financial crises in the early 21st century, an economic system which is considered to exist in isolation, and is not considered bound to a strict legal order is not a safe system for a society. Without IPRs, we would not likely have such luxurious innovation, diversity in publishing and arts. Anarchy? Libertarian conjecture regarding morality and ethics in a state system and the need for complete change is not constrained to objection to IPRs. Some libertarians are famous for promoting the complete abolition of government. Libertarian anarchism, according to some academics, is the perfect system for protection of all rights, although clearly such a system is

rife with confound. The idea that in the absence of government, the citizens would naturally correct the judicial order among themselves until a balance were reached closely resembles Smiths market theory on the invisible hand which has been said to not exist at all. Libertarian ethicist Roderick Long (2010) favored anarchy, saying I think that anarchy shouldnt be seen as an absence of checks and balancesI think it should be seen as sort of taking checks and balances to its own conclusionthat it would sort of start a new check and balance. This vision assumes a cessation of abuse, corruption, and of cyclical wrongs upon a first conclusion of a prior system, which is denying the antecedent. Long presumes that simply because a new system is not the present one, that it will be unlike the present one. Long continued, another thing is people often assume that there is going to be less legal uniformity under anarchy than under governmentbut I think there is actually reason to expect that there might be more legal uniformity under anarchy, which again fails to recognize the very definition of anarchy, or a state of lawlessness and disorder (Princeton, 2011). Longs vexed thinking is clearly emotionally provocative, causing many readers and listeners to not thoroughly examine its intellectual constituents and in the process of such inspection expose its myriad logical contradictions, confounds, and flaws. Like those who yearn for a removal of government or some free period in the future, others strive to resurrect systems of the past, believing the good old days better. Unfortunately, such theorists who earn their salaries in whole or in part by rejecting the current system under the presumption that any historical systems were superior are failing to acknowledge and understand the fundamental motivating factors which led to historical changes, and thus cannot fully comprehend the present tense. For Intellectual Property: Rands Libertarianism

Libertarians are attacking IP rights in the name of a so-called defense of property rights, said George Mason University law professor Adam Mossoff (2010) in a speech hosted by the Ayn Rand Institute. Nonetheless, libertarian opinion on intellectual property rights is not restricted to mere opposition, abolitionist, and anti-IPRs ideology. There is some diversity within the party. Much of the pro-IPR libertarian rhetoric draws on Ayn Rands radical idealism. Mossoff continued, explaining that Rand was the first philosopher use the connection between a mans mind and his life to support IP when she described the anti-IPR position of her time as an assault on mans mind and on the values he produces, and thus, an assault on mans life. In Atlas Shrugged and in Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal, Rand examined the relationship in capitalism between the mans mind and the mans survival. In the latter pamphlet, she asserted that Mans essential characteristic is his rational faculty. Mans mind is his basic means of survival his only means of gaining knowledge (Rand, 1966). Rand argued in favor of IPRs as a fundamental right in capitalism in a turbulent ethos which likely had her as an enemy of entire states on the geopolitical front. While the Rand articles are dated, the breakthroughs made are still significant and, regardless of continuing argument against, help form foundations of our formal IP laws. Kinsella, Long and their cohorts could hardly hold a candle to Ayn Rand. Intellectual Property as a Human Right Some authors and commentators have been so bold as to consider a globalized IP regime an aspect of neocolonialism(Rahmatian, 2009), but such theorists neglect that such an informal empire is not an empire at all, nor is a system of voluntary treaty adoption and reciprocal rights protection arrangements similar to models of the colonial era when equality and reciprocity were explicitly avoided. As we look back from a future time we may see that nations which benefitted most near the time of inception of the post-colonial IPR system

surely were the wealthiest and primarily Western nations, but that over time other nations closed the gap. The system is designed to provide rights for all people, built upon respect for sovereign equality under the 1945 UN Charter, which is a clear and obvious movement away from historical norms rather than hidden obedience thereto. Our global IPR protection regime provides a framework in which developing and third world nations can achieve their goals, and at some time be economic equals with presently wealthier nations, whose initially disproportionate benefits from the unified system may one day be considered mere coincidence. Authors from the Institute for Policy Innovation Center for Technology Freedom considered IPRs as furthering the progress of other human rights such as political speech, health care and education, arguing that copyright took publishing out of the hands of governments and monarchs and enabled the free published expression of individual authors and publishers, that expansive publication improves education, and that it was implementation of intellectual property protection that has resulted in widespread creation and distribution of new pharmaceuticals (Giovanetti & Matthews, 2005). Intellectual property rights are established as human rights in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1946) and in the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (1966).With rare exceptions like compulsory licenses on pharmaceuticals, the agenda at the UN has been to fully support IPRs. As such, the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights called on governments to protect IPRs (UNHCHR, 2000, 2001), and the UN Economic and Social Council called on governments to implement the 1966 Covenant with the view of enhancing IPRs (Chapman, 2000). IPRs are economic rights, and economic rights are human rights. Hence, support for IPRs is support for human rights. Intellectual Property: A Core Business Asset

The going theory is that protecting and enforcing IPRs provides incentive for innovation, investment, and progress. In the field of patents, incentives are for disclosure so people in the larger group can build on inventions and there may be a more collective benefit. For the purposes of this article, we shall consider the copyright systems as fundamentally similar to the patent systems and infer that disclosure of ideas to the public has a similar effect in literary and artistic fields, where protected works may be used to inspire and support future works. We will therefore rely on economic theory that copyright simultaneously achieves socially optimal production and consumption of protected material (Watt, 2009). IP Markets Marketing departments, rather than engineering or research or other departments, are most often charged with the task of deciding whether or not to launch new products or services (Mullins & Walker, 2010). Complex matrices of consumer preferences and probabilities are studied in the process of making such decisions regarding innovation. Intellectual Ventures vice president Greg Kisor (2006) found that economics plays heavily into innovation and bringing things to market. Big businesses clearly have a competitive advantage over SMEs in bringing products and services to markets due to their comparatively larger budgets and more expansive access to human and other resources. But universities, research labs, inventors, and small companies produce 60% of patents while only getting 1% of the revenue (ibid) as those patents are bought up and utilized by much larger companies. Likewise with copyright and related rights, oligopolies are the norm. Strategic Importance of IP At S&P 500 companies in the mid-1980s, tangible assets property, plants, equipment, etc. represented about 70% of total assets. By 2005, intangible assets accounted for about 70% of total assets, meaning IP became the biggest asset category at large

companies in about 20 years the life of a patent (Razgaitis, 2006). Between 1990 and 2008 in the UK, investment in intangibles/IP outpaced that in tangibles, with the gap growing widest after 1999, leading to intangibles investment making up nearly 60% of the total in 2008 (UKIPO, 2011). IP can be sold, licensed, or used as leverage against competitors, providing market advantages for businesses. IP provides sustainable competitive and comparative economic advantages for businesses and nations. Innovation is associated with a higher standard of living, sustained higher wages, and increased sophistication in society (WEF, 2010-2011). Innovative economies suffer fewer and shorter term shocks, and drive growth and recovery in global financial markets (World Bank, 2010). [Americas] single greatest asset is the innovation and the ingenuity and creativity of the American people, said US President Obama (2010), considering that IP-intensive industries accounted for 18.8% of all employment and 34.8% of the GDP in the USA in the same year (USESA & USPTO, 2012). The evolution of the US workforce closely followed the growing importance of IP in the 20th century, when the creative class grew from 10% to 30.1%, the working class declined from 35.8% to 26.1%, the service class grew from 16.7% to 43.4%, and the agriculture class fell from 37.5% to 0.4% of the workforce (Matthews & Giovanetti, 2002). Licensing and IP royalties help give western economies like the US, UK, and France consistent trade surpluses in services whereas those countries consistently post current account deficits (OECD, 2010). While, for the time being, the USA and western Europe have distinctly different goals and ambitions from the majority of the worlds countries and people, as development and growth continue over time, it is doubtful that rising powers like BRICS and ASEAN nations will not formulate IP strategies similar to the US and EU. Yu (2009) found that:

As more countries migrate from the traditional agrarian and industrial economies to ones that are based on post-industrial, knowledge-based innovation, intellectual property assets will only become more important. Market Symbiosis A well-functioning market indeed presupposes or at least requires a similarly functioning legal order. Protection of IPRs can enable entrepreneurs, SMEs, independent researchers, university labs, and MNCs to engage in R&D efforts which yield profit. Without profit available, without a market for IP, the cycle of research and development may cease and markets could easily become dominated by foreign firms which enjoy IPR protection in their home countries. The nature of the strong market imbued with a strong IP legal system is such that research and development may lead to consistent new product offerings, which can be associated with increased market activity and sales for individual companies, the proceeds of which may be reinvested into further research and development in a cyclical order where growth may be established as a norm. Mutual benefits to consumers and producers are provided by the innovation economy whereby customers have access to high technology and other new materials, and businesses have sufficient capital and equity resources to expand and develop internally and externally. SMEs and independent inventors have a stake in MNC successes given that MNCs may have greater potential to acquire IPRs via licensing or assignment agreements. Smaller ventures which do not have the necessary finances to bring products to market may concentrate on innovation and the market may become more efficient through division of labor. With broad IP portfolios, MNCs may be able to leverage their IP over competitors and take advantage of economies of scale, thus further reducing the costs of production and endline prices of products offered to individual and organizational consumers. Reduced costs and increased profit margins lead to increased shareholder equity, dividends, and opportunities

for businesses to tend to their fiduciary responsibilities. Theoretically, the economic merits of IPR protection and enforcement are virtually infallible. The profit motive may then also benefit society in general as MNCs and other private foundations will have more free cash and human resources to donate. Donations of time and money further increase buyer awareness of certain brands, improve the reputation of individual companies, and help make corporate social responsibility the expected norm. Enhanced public cooperation and community participation in the supply chain and largerorder economic structure tend to imply broader transparency and inclusion in the marketplace. More profitable publishing, including online, available under systems featuring better protection of copyright, may lead toward better education and improved institutions, the benefits of which will be felt in all realms of societies. Conclusions Overall benefits to economies in the form of higher wages and standards of living increase satisfaction and quality of life. In higher-quality societies, respect for the rights of others down to the deepest levels of existence, such as those pondered by Rand in the 60s, has a greater chance of becoming normalized. Hence, human rights and living conditions may improve with simple changes like greater respect for intellectual property. The merits and value of creativity and innovation are validated by recognition and enforcement of IPRs. Presently, strife and argument run afoul due in no small part to greed and misuse of capital and intellectual resources. Party splits and rebellious factions within groups magnify disagreements between groups. Such in-fighting is counterproductive, alienating newcomers to the discussion. If agreement is to be had, then it must be for mutual benefit. Surely, the idea that a persons life and mind are inextricably linked may inspire cooperation. Any creation of humankind comes from the body whether forged by hand, foot or mouth. All such creative processes require exchanges of chemicals in the body, which are

entirely tangible regardless of the composition of the final output. Lifeblood is translated into the material world when ideas and visions are fixed into media, sculpted into matter, or formed into prototypes, but those objects originate in the mind in the brain where they continue to reside long after liberation. Energies expended in the design and production of works should not go unrewarded, regardless of what some commentators refuse to consider tangible. All creative works are real. In any case, the origins should be accurately marked and economic benefits at least shared by the true originator. Anything less would, in fact, be uncivilized.

References 1883 Paris Convention for the Protection of Industrial Property 1886 Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works 1891 Madrid Agreement Concerning the International Registration of Marks 1945 United Nations Charter 1946 United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights 1966 International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights 1970 Patent Cooperation Treaty ASEAN. (2004). Statistics of Foreign Direct Investment in ASEAN. Retrieved from http://www.aseansec.org ASEAN. (2009). Investment Report: Sustained FDI Flows Dependent on Global Economic Recovery. Retrieved from http://www.aseansec.org ASEAN. (2011). Foreign Direct Investment Statistics. Retrieved from http://www.aseansec.org BASCAP. (n.d.). Intellectual Property: Powerhouse for Innovation and Economic Growth. ICC, Paris, France.

Caslon Analytics. (2002). IP Chronology. Retrieved from http://www.caslon.com.au Chapman, A. (2000). Implementation of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights. (E/C.12/2000/12). UNESC Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights: Retrieved from http://www.unhchr.ch Cisco Systems, Inc. and Cisco Technology, Inc. v. Huawei Technologies, Co., Ltd., Huawei America, Inc. and Futurewei Technologies, Inc. (US Eastern District of Texas 2003). D'Amico, D. (2011). An Economist's Look at Intellectual Property Law. Cato Institute. Dodge v. Ford Motor Co., No. 170 NW 668 (Mich. 1919) (Michigan Supreme Court, USA 1919). EthiSphere. (2011). World's Most Ethical Companies. Executive Office of the President of the US. (2010). Joint Strategic Plan on Intellectual Property Enforcement. Retrieved from http://www.justice.gov Friedman, M. (1953). Essays in Positive Economics. University of Chicago Press, 3-43. Foley, J. (2002). Ethics in Internet. Vatican City: Retrieved from http://www.vatican.va Giovanetti, T., & Matthews, M. (2005). Intellectual Property Rights and Human Rights. Institute for Policy Innovation Center for Technology Freedom: Retrieved from http://www.ipi.org/ Helfer, L. (2009). Navigating Institutional Density in Intellectual Property Regimes: The Strategy of Regime Shifting. 7 Perspectives in Politics. Holy Bible. (NKJV). Exodus 20:15, Matthew 19:18, Romans 13:9. Retrieved from www.bible.com ICC Commercial Crime Services. (2011). Counterfeiting Intelligence Bureau. London, England: Retrieved from http://www.icc-ccs.org/home/cib Jamar, S. (1992). The Protection of Intellectual Property under Islamic Law. 21 Cap. U. L. Rev. 1079.

Jones, M. (2007). Hofstede - Culturally Questionable? . Oxford Business & Economics Conference. Khan, Z. B. (2002). Intellectual Property and Economic Development: Lessons from American and European History. Commission on Intellectual Property Rights: Retrieved from http://www.iprcommission.org Kinsella, S. (2001). Against Intellectual Property. Journal of Libertarian Studies, 15(2). Kinsella, S. (2011). Intellectual Property and Economic Development. Ludwig von Mises Institute. Kisor, G. (2006). Intellectual Property and Invention: The Emergence of an Efficient Market. Technology Management Program. University of California Santa Barbara. Lee, S.-H., & Workman, J. (2011). Attitudes Toward Counterfeit Purchases and Ethical Beliefs Among Korean and American University Students. Family & Consumer Sciences Research Journal, 39(3), 289-305. Lom, H. (n.d.). Branding: How to Use Intellectual Property to Create Value for Your Business? WIPO: Retrieved from http://www.wipo.int Long, R. (2010). An Anarchistic Legal Order. Foundations of Libertarian Ethics. Mises University, Auburn, AL, USA. McSweeney, B. (2002). Hofstede's model of national cultural differences and their consequences: A triumph of faith - a failure of analysis. Human Relations, 55, 89-118. Mossoff, A. (2010). Why should business leaders care about intellectual property. ARC Speaker Series. Chicago, IL, USA. MSU. (2011). MSU Copyright Infringement Disclosure. Retrieved from http://www.montana.edu Mullins, J., & Walker, O. (2010). Marketing Management (Seventh ed.): McGraw-Hill Education Asia, Singapore.

OECD. (2010). OECD Statistics on International Trade in Services 2010. OECD Publishing Retrieved from http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/sits_vol_1-2010-en-fr Peslak, A. (2007). Information Technology Intellectual Property Ethics: Issues and Analysis. Issues in Information Systems, VIII(2), 207-213. Phillips, D. (2011). The Big Four: Controlling Popular Music and Artists. University of North Carolina, NC, USA. Phukan, S., & Dhillon, G. (2001). Ethical and Intellectual Property Concerns in a Multicultural Global Economy. Electronic Journal on Information Systems in Developing Countries, 7(3), 1-8. Princeton. (Ed.) (2011) WordNet Search (anarchy). Rahmatian, A. (2009). Neo-Colonial Aspects of Global Intellectual Property Protection. The Journal of World Intellectual Property, 12(1), 40-74. Rand, A. (1966). Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal: Signet. Razgaitis, R. (2006). US/Canadian Licensing In 2005-Survey Results: Licensing Foundation of LES. RIAA. (2008). RIAA Continues College Deterrance Campaign into 2008. Retrieved from http://www.riaa.com Roder, F. (2007). Strategic Benefits and Risks of Vertical Integration in International Media Conglomerates and Their Effect on Firm Performance. Doctor Oecenomiae, University of St. Gallen. Retrieved from http://www1.unisg.ch Steidlmeier, P. (1993). The Moral Legitimacy of Intellectual Property Claims: American Business and Developing Country Perspectives. Journal of Business Ethics, 12(2), 157-164. Stiglitz, J. (2007). The Economic Foundations of Intellectual Property. 6th Annual Frey Lecture. Duke University School of Law.

The Authors Guild. (2011). Authors groups from UK, Canada, Norway and Sweden join Authors Guild, Australian Society of Authors, and Quebec Writers Union in Suit against HathiTrust. Retrieved from http://www.authorsguild.org/ The Holy See. (n.d.). Catechism of the Catholic Church. Retrieved from http://www.vatican.va UKIPO. (2011). The UK's International Strategy for Intellectual Property. Newport: Concept House Retrieved from www.ipo.gov.uk. UNHCHR. (2000). Intellectual property rights and human rights. (Sub-Commission on Human Rights resolution 2000/7). Retrieved from http://www.unhchr.ch UNHCHR. (2001). Intellectual Property and Human Rights. (Sub-Commission on Human Rights resolution 2001/21). Retrieved from http://www.unhchr.ch UNODC. (2011). Estimating Illicit Financial Flows Resutling from Drug Trafficking and Other Transnational Organized Crimes. Retrieved from http://www.unodc.org US Department of Commerce International Trade Commission. (2004). Business Ethics: A manual for managing a responsible business enterprise in emerging market economies. Retrieved from http://www.trade.gov USESA & USPTO. (2012). Intellectual Property and the US Economy: Industries in Focus. Wagner, R. P. (2003). Information wants to be free: Intellectual property and the mythologies of control. Columbia Law Review, 103, 995-1034. Waldron, J. (2004). Property and Ownership Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Wasko, J., Murdock, G., & Sousa, H. (2011). The Handbook of Political Economy of Communications. Wiley-Blackwell. Watt, R. (2009). The Economics of Intellectual Property: Suggestions for Further Research in Developing Countries and Countries with Economies in Transition. WIPO: Retrieved from http://www.wipo.int

WEF. (2010-2011). The Global Competitiveness Report. (ISBN-13: 978-92-95044-87-6). Retrieved from http://www3.weforum.org WIPO. (2010). World Intellectual Property Indicators. Retrieved from http://www.wipo.int World Bank. (2010). Innovation Economies Key to Faster Recovery in Post-Crisis Europe and Central Asia. Yu, P. (2009). The Global Intellectual Property Order and its Undetermined Future. WIPO Journal(1), 1-15.