((red)) and the ownership of intellectual property
The significant problems we face cannot be solvedby the same level of thinking that created them.--Albert Einstein
Lawyers, philosophers and scientists are all trained to question first principles. The right of one individual to the absolute and exclusive right of dominion over property by virtue of creation or payment (by money or barter) is one of the first principles of capitalism and is rarely questioned. /**
The ownership of ideas, however, and one's entitlement to preclude others from interfering with another's dominion over them, is more slippery today than ever. In this month's Harvard Business School Working Knowledge journal, for instance, Professor James Heskett kicks off a reader's forum -- Who Owns Intellectual Property -- (open until April 24) with the following:
I [recently] visited the website of the branding consultancy Wolff Olins, responsible for creating the branding for (RED), which raises money for The Global Fund being promoted by Bono and Bobby Shriver. (RED) is a brand, a piece of intellectual property that was designed purposely to be co-opted by others wishing to incorporate it into their advertising. Organizations such as Apple, Gap, and American Express have promoted their products and services using (RED) while raising money for The Global Fund.
Wolff Olins' homepage presents a provocative redefinition of brands as practical platforms that enable people to do things. In its words, "As brands become less the property of an organisation and more the banner of a movement, ownership will become even looser. Logos will be things other organisations, and individuals, can borrow and adapt." That belief, they maintain, will require that some companies, in their own best interests, relinquish control over brands and "be more generous" with consumers. In other words, they take the risk of transferring ownership and quality control of what used to be called their brand to others. In this case, who owns the intellectual property?
More generally, are views of ownership of intellectual property changing? If so, how will it affect the way intellectual property is valued for financial purposes? Are laws worldwide regarding intellectual property out of date? What do you think?
To add your own thoughts, click here.
____________________
/** Though possibly apocryphal, in responding to the question "what proof need I present to demonstrate my ownership of this slave," a trial judge sitting in a non-slave state in 1840's America is said to have answered, “a bill of sale from God Almighty.”
Hmm, does Prof Heskett write his piece after having looked at the trade mark situation I wonder? The Persuaders, LLC (the company that runs the official RED website at www.joinred.com) states clearly that it is the owner of the RED branding and that whilst use of it in connection with the promotion of the aims (the "movement" element)is allowed it certaintly isn't allowed on products without an appropriate licence (and, I assume, an appropriate royalty). The Persuaders, LLC is the owner of 9 US trade mark applications and 6 EU trade mark applications, all based around the word RED.
Whilst some concepts around branding are akin to, say, the open source software movement, the adaptation is not, it seems to me, about collective ownership but about an owner allowing wide-spread use by anyone but only under certain circumstances. Even the word LINUX is a registered trademark in at least the EU countries and owned by Linus Torvalds and licensed to the Linux Mark Instute whose stated objective is to protect the mark for the Open Source community rather than make sure no-one has rights in the word.
Thanks for the comment Andrew. In the current "content must be free!" environment it's good to be reminded that APPEARING TO GIVE is just another way to sell your stuff.