Page 148 - T-I JOURNAL19 4

796 SIEGEL & SUCHENEK

Declaration of Independence, was a particularly facto and substantially — innovation and creation.”
emphatic writer along these lines (see, for example, This argument may be attractive on its sur-
the writings of Franklin cited by Barbara Tuchman face, but, like the economic and legal arguments
in her book The First Salute). Among the rationales in support of slavery, can lead via extrapolation to
offered in England for this corruption was that it was undesirable results. For example, one can use it to
supportive of economic prosperity. The conclusion dismiss the need for a criminal code based on the
drawn by several of the U.S. founders was, therefore, observation that laws restrict freedom, and no law
that not every action that helped economic prosper- can make a law-abiding citizen out of a criminal. The
ity was a good idea. way, in our view, to resolve such apparent tension
The combination of factors cited above provides in reasoning is to distinguish between the concrete
a rationale for believing that the focus in the U.S. benefit and tangible application of freedoms for
Constitution on patent protection was driven by a individuals versus the abstract benefit and vague
desire for justice more than a desire for economic application of the notion of “freedom for society
benefit. at large.” As scientists, we understand the flaws in
There may, of course, be valid reasons to see an argument that can result from such an applica-
interconnections between political philosophy and tion of a line of reasoning outside of its domain of
economic success; the striking examples of our times validity. We assert that the flaw in the above argu-
were the Communist and Socialist movements (orig- ment is similar: Arguments about the “freedom for
inally, these were actually one single movement), society at large” are platitudes that state a general
which at their root rejected private ownership as a objective, but declarations of the specific rights of
positive societal value. The facts of the last 100 years individuals (especially, the rights of individuals vis-
are that, in general, even countries with abundant a-vis the government) can be the basis for specific
natural resources and well-educated populations legal principles. Comparing benefits of platitudes to
did poorly in economic terms under Communist those of specific, actionable principles is an inher-
and Socialist governments. But the emphasis of the ently invalid comparison.
founders of the U.S. would seem to be on the phil- Of course, some scholars (for example, Boldrin
osophical and political benefits of private owership and Levin (16)) go even farther and argue that intel-
(which, in their view, included intellectual property) lectual property is detrimental to progress in science
rather than on the economic benefits thereof. and, therefore, should be abolished. Our answer to
It is, however, still well within U.S. intellec- this argument is that society needs not only sci-
tual tradition to examine and advocate other ence but also engineering (e.g., the application of
approaches. Traditional U.S. emphasis on freedom scientific principles to create practical devices and
is often translated into an emphasis on freedom effects) and that on both the basis of justice and eco-
of information, which seems in tension with the nomic benefit, engineering and the creation of such
idea of private ownership and control of intellec- practical devices benefit from intellectual property
tual property. An example of such position may be protection.
found in the book Against Intellectual Monopoly Some even assert that intellectual property pro-
(16) by Michele Boldrin and David K. Levine. The tection hinders not only science but also engineering.
authors’ main thesis is that intellectual property is, For example, Mike Palecek in “Capitalism Versus
in fact, an “intellectual monopoly” that does not Science” (17) seems to hold a very similar opin-
directly promote innovation, one that it hinders ion to Boldrin and Levin’s when he writes:“We are
rather than helps free-market competitiveness. From constantly bombarded with the myth that capital-
this, they infer that intellectual property protection ism drives innovation, technology, and scientific
has a diminishing effect on innovation and wealth. advancement. But in fact, the precise opposite is
Their main argument seems to revolve around their true. Capitalism is holding back every aspect of
assertion that “the only justification for intellectual human development, and science and technology
property [protection] is that it would increase — de is no exception.”