Intellectual Property Law

Should intellectual property rights be stripped to stop global warming?

Not only are international hands being extended to collect funds from countries like the United States in order to help poorer nations deal with a problem that might actually be disappearing since global temperatures peaked in 1998, but climate change is also being used as a means of stripping intellectual property rights from companies that have created new more eco-friendly energy technologies. Feast your eyes on the following report from Bali by the Associated Press Wednesday under the headline "Poor Nations Demand Climate Technology" Developing nations at the U.N. Climate Change Conference demanded rapid transfers of technology Wednesday to help them combat global warming, while a report warned that some of Asia's biggest cities could be threatened by rising sea levels. [...] Delegates and activists led by the Group of 77, which represents 132 mainly developing countries and China, said barriers such as intellectual property rights and a lack of a sense of urgency among rich countries are slowing the transfer of needed technology. But Zou Ji, a member of China's delegation who specializes in clean-energy-technology issues, said in an interview he would introduce a proposal during the meeting that would set up a body under the United Nations to promote the transfer of renewable-energy technology to poorer nations. He will also propose that the U.N. body manage a fund that would help finance the spread of new, clean-power technologies. The fund also would support research on clean-energy technology and could acquire intellectual-property rights related to clean power. "We are dealing with something related to public good," Mr. Zou said. "It's a trade-off between intellectual-property rights and climate protection." Picture becoming clearer? In order to save the planet from the bogeyman these folks helped create and instill fear of, American companies that conceivably have been working for years to develop new energy technologies must forfeit their rights to such valuable property. does the phrase some like to use, "Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." not apply in this case for some reason?

Public Comments

1. Hell No! (Nice novella here! You nailed it!)
2. The problem is that the richer nations have not taken a lead. The poorer nations will surely follow but what incentive do voliatile economies have if their developed counterparts do not act first?
3. 'intellectual property rights' I am not sure that word means what you think it does...
4. Will people try to capitalize? yes, but we have dealt with Republicans profiteering from disasters before.
5. You know who owns the patents of clean technology and are sitting on them because they would hurt their profits right? The oil companies, they buy up these patents, never use them, so people have to continue to be dependant on their oil.
6. probably the government have been stripping away property rights for years,its called eminent domain.
7. well... to an extent, people will have to give a little despite their inevidible personal feelings. in the long run, the earth's well being is more permanent and important than the owner's happiness.
8. No. Nothing should be done about global warming, especially not taking away people's rights. Any warming is because of fewer sun spots on the sun (sun spots give off less radiation). This is a myth, just like how Al Gore invented the internet, except this time he actually did invent man-made global warming. America defeated this guy in 2000, isn't it about time that he crawl into a hole and stop his fear-mongering?
9. We have a planet to save people! The us is the most polluting country of all. It was advanced nations technologies which created the problem in the first place so these nations have a bigger obligation in trying to abate it.
10. NO!!!!! There is no reason why intellectual property rights ( to inventions and other creative works) would be related to global warming. The whole question is illogical, and would serve as a fine example of the logical error called a red herring. Personally I feel that capturing carbon dioxide and feeding it to plants such as corn and soybeans to increase production of crops is a global warming solution in accord with the culture of poorer nations. I do feel that technology that is beneficial should be developed and not withheld by buying intellectual rights to a superior product, only to withhold it so (your) company can increase profits at the expense of the general public welfare and general public good. All technologies to not fit well with all cultures!!!!
11. New clean power should sustain itself through higher profitability of the industries that use their waste to produce it. If a new industry is going to be created to monopolize another furl industry, biofuel energy will probably not be a realistic alternative. The fuels should be produced in the agricultural sector to increase farm profitability, or nothing is really going to be solved.