[eDebate] In Defense of IPR

Chris Thiele chris.thiele
Tue Apr 11 19:21:49 CDT 2006

Not really prepared to talk about my abortion?

Top reasons to prefer IPR

One - Say No to Agent CPs or Scary Normal Means PICs ? (think grounds
specification or 5-4/9-0 or delay). If you think the aff will win these
debates on theory, think how far many teams got away with unquestionable
counterplans even this year when they were given engagement. And, look at
high school topic for at least a rough starting point where many teams will
pull from. These issues are less likely to come up under IPR because the US
Patent Trademark Office is on balance pretty good, and counterplans to
redelegate authority to Congress or some other department, or have the
states do it, are likely to lose on substance (Commerce Clause anyone?).

Two ? "Single yet not too Single" Harms Area. IPR has "software
industries/pharmaceuticals (both basic drug patents and upstream medical
research on human genes/DNA/sequences/etc) / biotechnology" Each of this are
pretty interrelated (IE that who "intellectural property rights" thing)
while the various cases listed for the Supreme Court are far and wide. Will
my research on "abortion key to decrease crime" carry over to Lawrence v.
Texas or Grutter v. Bollinger or Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition?

Three ? Napster ? who wants to know if they are really breaking the law late
at night with their p2p schemes?

Four ? Midterms/or Other Politics DA How many of us want to lose aff debates
on "nuke war with Iran outweighs your "free speech" advantage or your
"abortion advantage"? I think both those who fear the bastardization of
arguments to debate (clearly not me) and those who just hate not having a
good aff advantage impact (how does abortion get to free trade or north
korea?) would agree IPR might be an easy way out.

Only two claims so far have been made against IPR.

"Been there, done that". No Not Really. A Topic that expanded property
rights in the United States? I must have missed that boat.

The China topic - This was entirely about compliance/implementation of
existing property rates, not the expansion of them. Moreover, just by
glancing at advantages ran, (and diversity of add-ons), it seemed like the
normal Aff/Neg strategy was "lets find an impact to Viagra or some random
medicine or software, because they'll spot us the link direction". That
literature base was mostly written from the perspective of "the West has
sweet property rights, but those dirty Chinese won't play by our rules".
Very little of the China topic questioned that first premise.

The Europe Topic ? How many IPR debates did we have? Unless if you go to
Dartmouth, you might have problems counting more than 5 fingers. And even
better ? these debates were about weakening US property rights (Europe had
stronger ethical limitations in their DNA sequence property regime than the
US) to "harmonize them", not really strengthening them. And if your afraid
about Dartmouth cornering the market on research ? removing computer
homology as a method to determine gene sequence utility would indeed be

Jason Russell or Malcom or "I'm bored".  This is probably responsible for
the most hesitation

Look, IPR is NOT a yes/no question. Most "qualified" (this excludes Nyquist)
scholars agree that some level of IPR protection is NECESSARY and ESSENTIAL,
the only question is "how deep is too deep?" Where should we expand and
where should we not expand? This literature base IS very very technical; but
its not like the alternative is basic poli sci research (An Iran topic
anyone? Or maybe even most of the China topic) - courts implementation and
rulemaking is also very boring.

I think the only people who are persuaded by this "boring claim" will be
those who just rant about abortion or censorship or heterosexuality being
good or bad on face without ever really debating the grounds they rule on or
the policy effects of those grounds anyway. In short, they will run from the
"heart" of the topic to critique land. And not that we should ignore those
people, but they'll find a way to do that with IPR anyway.

 <edebate at ndtceda.com>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20060411/5b0a2a01/attachment.html 

More information about the Mailman mailing list