正論？それとも暴論？ 特許権制度と著作権制度を廃止せよ

日本において特許法の目的は、
第一条 　この法律は、発明の保護及び利用を図ることにより、発明を奨励し、もつて産業の発達に寄与することを目的とする。
著作権法の目的は、
第一条　この法律は、著作物並びに実演、レコード、放送及び有線放送に関し著作者の権利及びこれに隣接する権利を定め、これらの文化的所産の公正な利用に留意しつつ、著作者等の権利の保護を図り、もつて文化の発展に寄与することを目的とする。

どちらの権利も「利用」と「保護」のバランスを図ることにより産業の発達、文化の発展に寄与することを目的としており、特別法としてその権利を認められています。
米国ではそのバランスが権利者側に傾きすぎており、以下のような意見が出てきているのではと（個人的に）思います。特に特許権に関し、権利を取得する権利者側においても利害が対立し特許法の改正がうまくまとまる様子が見えません。自己調整能力を欠いた特許システムなどなくしてしまえという言う意見が出てくるのも当然のなりゆきかもしれません。
著作権においても、著作権団体が個人を訴訟しまくっていましたしやり過ぎとの批判がでるのもうなずけます。
幸い（？）日本においては特許権利者の権利が米国ほど大きくないのでこのような弊害はまだ出ていないように思えます（製薬分野はどうなんだろう？）。

ただ、（あくまでも私見ですが）この強欲野郎！と思えるのが著作権関係団体ですね。文化の発展に寄与するというようり徹底的に儲け尽そうとしているのがありありと見てとれます（企業保有の社員向け厚生施設のカラオケからも著作権料をふんだくっていきますよ。文化の発展なんか口実だけで、法の定義上金を取れる可能性のあるところからはすべてふんだくろうという守銭奴ですね）。なんで著作物保護期間があんなに長くなければならないのでしょうか？
ある程度利益の還元を受けたら公共財産として文化の発展に寄与させるのが筋じゃないでしょうかね。せめて、著作権保護期間が15年を過ぎたくらいで、著作権から得た収入には９０％くらいの税金をかけてその税収入は文化事業に投入するくらいのことをしたらどうでしょう？→与党の立法に期待します。

Newswise
Patent and copyright law are stifling innovation and threatening the global economy according to two economists at Washington University in St. Louis in a new book, Against Intellectual Monopoly. Professors Michele Boldrin and David K. Levine call for abolishing the current patent and copyright system in order to unleash innovations necessary to reverse the current recession and rescue the economy. The professors discuss their stand against intellectual property protections in a video and news release linked here.

— Abolishing patent and copyright law sounds radical, but two economists at Washington University in St. Louis say it's an idea whose time has come. Michele Boldrin and David K. Levine see innovation as a key to reviving the economy. They believe the current patent/copyright system discourages and prevents inventions from entering the marketplace. The two professors have published their views in a new book, Against Intellectual Monopoly, from Cambridge University Press.
-----------------------------

上記は経済学者の見解ですが、知財関係者のブログでこんな記事も見つけました。
So, It’s the intellectual property, stupid!

1. “Mistrust between Rich and Poor Hits Green Trade“
Cutting-edge green technologies are mostly concentrated in the US and Europe. Yet to stimulate global trade these technologies needs to be disseminated. China maybe a have-not in IP on these areas, they certainly have the know-how to manufacture at low prices and are able to make green techologies more widely used in the world. The have’s, US, Europe and Japan, however are not sharing their technologies, afraid that they are that after transfer of the technology to manufacture, China will copy and come off after the same innovative companies in order to globally compete with them. Climate change needs international technology transfer, so a big barrier to trade is IP. There must be ways to overcome this obstacle, e.g. by having China to change its IP policies so as to find ways to respect IP and ensure that technology transfer is not followed by copying technologies, rather take a license to manufacture and become a technology partner and respectful of IP. If, in the future, China becomes the new R&D engine and produces its own green IP innovations, well, then the reverse should be true, US, EU and JP companies then should take licenses under this Chinese IP protected green technologies. The reality however is that EU, US and JP are ahead in this technology area, so ….let us get rid of the IP barriers to prevent the tech transfer so badly needed.

2. “China Mobile in research offer“
Another example of how removing IP barriers can promote international trade. China Mobile betted on 3G TD-SCMA technology for their wireless handsets. However they have problems to have these function properly. China Mobile wants their so called dual mode handsets being capable of running on both its 3G and 2G wireless networks. So, to solve technology issues and improve innovation, China Mobile acknowledges that its Western, Korean and Japanese counterparts are much more advanced in R&D in these areas. As a result, China Mobile offers to help finance R&D efforts by the same Western, Korean and Japanese companies to solve these technical issues. This would entail technology transfer both ways first from KR, JP, US and EU to China and then, I guess, back to those same companies that helped creating the solutions. That can only happen if the IP systems in China are as good and effective as in the US, Europe, Korea and Japan. As long as these parties consider China to be a risk factor in that they will ultimately disrespect IP and copy what they see and learn, nobody will show “the back his tongue” and no international tech transfer will take place. Research, necessary to stimulate innovation and stimulate international economies, will then fail to cross borders.

3. “Taiwan looks to transform D-Ram sector. Move to breathe life into Chip Industry
Third example. Taiwan recently created a new company, TMC, to reinvigorate their D-Ram (Dynamic Random Access Memory) industry’s technology to better compete internationally with Korean (Samsung) and US companies. This is Taiwnan’s move to shape up the US$ 23.6 billion global industry. TMC, in order to beef up its industry competitiveness, wants to buy technology from Japanese companies like Elpida, Micron and others. How come Taiwan ended up to be lagging behind in the first place? Intellectual Property is the answer. Taiwanese companies lacked proprietary technologies, so they are now forced to license in the latest technology form third parties. Again, had Taiwanese paid more attention by buying in those proprietary technologies or invest in R&D and translate that into US, EP, KR and JP patents, they would be in a different position all together.