The claim is: "For New Zealand to prosper, it is imperative that intellectual property protection is tightened."
"Examine both sides of the topic, decide what ground you take, develop an argument in logical progression on the chosen topic and present your position in a discussion paper."

it's 2000 words, and i'll be doing it over the next 2 days.

What are some points i should mention in this? both things that have already been mentioned in the forum, and other sources?

EDIT (6/10/2010): I have now submitted this. I might post a link to my discussion later, after it has been marked.

Wow im doing the same assignment too. Funny how pirate party just came into my head when i read intellectual property . There was a link in pirate party for excluding software from being patentable from the Core Policy http://pirateparty.org.nz/wiki/Core_Pol ... ent_system and also The New Zealand Open Source Society http://nzoss.org.nz/news/2010/nz-open-s ... ill-stance.

I was thinking of saying that patents for anything but software is good, and maybe also say pharmaceutical http://www.piratpartiet.se/an_alternati ... al_patents .

I got those links from the information tab as well as the core policy (also under information).

Do you think we have to talk about IP concerning everything? Would marks be lost if only software was mentioned?

Gl with assignment bro, thats all I got so far.

Oh really?

Are you doing ENGGEN 403 at UoA? or is there some other course doing the same assignment?

I'm pretty sure we only get marked on spelling and grammar and stuff, so it shouldn't really matter. I'm gonna argue that all patents should be reduced, but i imagine you could say "tighten patents on some things, but narrow the scope" and it would work...

i'll probably dump some material from mises blog here if i find much on topic.

btw do you use the same name in #ppnz?

Yup same course and assignment ENGGEN403. Yea I think I'm going with no patents for software, dish in the usual arguments of no "physical items" being lost, IP should be for physical items only etc.

Not sure however if fitting in the 2 topics of software and pharmaceutical might be too confusing.

# ppnz ? .... Ok this is going to look bad for me but I don't know what that means ... -_-. I'm guessing its IRC chat? Admittingly I haven't used it in 8 years, I'll try to show up next meeting !

Oh sorry. yeah, it's the IRC chat channel on irc.piratpartiet.se. We use it for more than just meetings, theres normally 2 or 3 of us in there. Just show up whenever.

I'm in there pretty much constantly :p

I'm gonna use mainly economic arguments i think.

Yeah, I think this is the right decision, the question sounds like it's focusing on economics. I guess it doesn't make any difference now, but I would have mentioned these papers that set the economically optimal copyright term at 15 years:

Pollock, Rufus (2007) Forever Minus a Day? Some Theory and Empirics of Optimal Copyright.
<http://www.rufuspollock.org/economics/papers/optimal_copyright.pdf>

Pollock, Rufus (2009) Forever Minus a Day? Calculating Optimal Copyright Term.
<http://www.rufuspollock.org/economics/papers/optimal_copyright_term.pdf>

In order to best ensure economic prosperity, then, according to these papers, we ought to set the copyright term at 15 years.

I seem to recall something about 'fair use' contributing to the economy as well.

For patents:
All of the empirical work in this area has come basically to the same conclusion--that patents are a particularly important inducement to invention in only a few industries. In pharmaceuticals, for example, patents seem to be an important part of the inducement for R&D. However, in industries like semiconductors and computers, the advantages that come with a head start--including setting up production, sales and service structures, and moving down the learning curve--were judged much more effective than patents as an inducement to R&D. In some of these industries, the respondents said that imitation was innately time-consuming and costly, even if there were no patent protection. In others, it was said that technology was moving so fast that patents were pointless. In any event, the empirical literature on appropriability certainly shows that there appear to be some industries where patents play a much smaller role than other forces in shaping the pattern of innovation. When we are looking at patent policy, we have to do so within the context of understanding how means other than patents induce invention and related activities. These other means include government grants and contracts, strong first-mover advantages, and rapid technological change.

ABA Section of Antitrust Law, Intellectual Property and Antitrust Handbook (2007), p. 108.

mm they might have helped a little, if i spent more time on it. oh well, it's only sustainability and i got something almost decent in anyway.

The new big thing on the agenda is the software patent debate in Auckland on the 15th of October. Some of that might come in useful.