1. Opening Argument
1.1. Opening Statement Possibilities
1.1.1. Satirical “film, lit, tech, medicine"
1.1.2. Burden of proof
1.1.2.1. House example
1.1.2.2. Monopolies Inherently bad
1.1.2.3. IP argument
1.1.2.3.1. Innovation benefits all... why not ip everything?
1.1.2.4. Must demonstrate with DATA: w/o IP significantly less innovation
1.1.3. Definition opening
1.2. Monopolies
1.2.1. Charge high price
1.2.2. “rent-seeking"
1.2.3. less innovation
1.2.3.1. no incentive/negative incentive
1.3. Literature
1.3.1. 2 Gov’t books
1.3.2. English Copyright
1.3.3. 80% of book sales in first 3 months
1.3.4. $1 to have book 1 day sooner (amazon)
1.4. Film
1.4.1. Porn
1.4.2. Will Smith
1.4.3. $6 dollar difference in movie ticket price from 1st to 2nd screening
1.5. Software
1.5.1. Explosion before patentable
1.5.2. Strictly patented in 1994, Microsoft?
1.5.3. Unix/Linux open source
1.5.4. Bill Gates quote
1.6. Medicine??
1.7. Lawyer leach
1.7.1. “Patent Troll"
1.7.1.1. Intellectual Ventures (30,000 patents)
1.8. Kill the goose that lays the golden egg
1.8.1. Jean Tirole, “if one wants to induce firms to undertake R&D one must accept the creation of monopolies as a necessary evil"
2. Rebuttal
2.1. Pharmaceutical
2.1.1. Is there substantial evidence that without patents we would have less medicine?
2.1.2. List of biggest pharma inventions
2.1.3. Redundant drugs
2.1.4. Compare r&d to ads
2.1.4.1. I have no problem with ads, just demonstrating monop-gam theory
2.1.5. Show examples of non ip thriving pharmas
2.1.6. Save approximately 20 billion dollars if pharma drugs are cheaper
2.1.7. FDA
2.2. Music industry
2.2.1. How much goes to band quote
2.3. Disney
2.3.1. Worth more not produced
2.4. First mover advantage serves its purpose
2.5. Does it increase innovation?
2.5.1. After copy right for music took place in 18th century Europe, lost between 40 to 90 percent of composers; only in france did increase
2.5.2. Switzerland w/o patents (mid 19 cent) second most inventions per captia
2.6. Simultaneous Discovery
3. Conclusion
3.1. Imagine an industry beginning under patent
3.2. Good laws are destined to make the CONSUMER better off, not a few very rich (Bastist)
3.3. Imitation is a great thing
3.4. Intellectual Property is about my right to control- not my idea- but your COPY of my idea
3.4.1. And that is an infringement upon YOUR property rights; not the other way around
3.5. Most ideas are accidents/don’t need incentives
3.6. The externality subsidized by IP, is negated by decreased collaboration and improvement
3.6.1. what good is an idea if that’s all that it is: one good idea
3.7. Watt Steam engine
3.7.1. Do we have to delay EVERY industrial rev by X amt of years so that SOME can be rich??