 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
|
|
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
« Back to Lessig News
« Back to the Lessig Blog
Lessig Blog Archives: John Edwards Guest Entries
Thanks for the good comments on the last post. I definitely get questions here that I don’t usually hear on the campaign trail!
There was an interesting back-and-forth over whether changes in the drug approval process would discourage innovation. Of course nobody wants that to happen. But for a long time now, we’ve seen drug companies too focused on profiting not from genuine innovation, but from games with patents and FDA filings. There are similar concerns about the growing emphasis on so-called “me-too” drugs, which provide fewer benefits than breakthrough drugs. We want lower drug prices AND more innovation—and I know the right set of reforms can get us there.
I’d like to close by touching on a different IP issue. Besides ensuring a fair balance in intellectual property law, we also need to have a level playing field for different kinds of innovations. That level playing field is at issue in the current competition between proprietary licensing and open source IP protection. My view here is simple: the government should not favor one means of IP protection over another. People should be free to make choices for themselves. Software businesses using proprietary licensing and open source each have a big presence in my home state, and I am proud of both. We should continue to support an environment where companies and individuals can freely choose whether to use open source, proprietary licensing, or another mode of intellectual property protection that someone will invent someday in the future. When a government official stepped forward and opposed an international forum on open source, that was a mistake—just as it would be a mistake to oppose a discussion of proprietary licensing. As I said, the role of government is to establish a level playing field, not pick a winner.
I’ve really enjoyed the opportunity to blog with all of you about the future of technology and the future of our country. I know I haven’t answered every question, but I will continue to work hard on the topics you all have raised here over the last week. The time here has been a big help. I’ll be watching the comments here, and soon I’ll continue this discussion on my blog, at blog.johnedwards2004.com. Hope to hear from you there. Thanks again to Larry Lessig, and to all of you who have written in or read.
Thanks again for all the comments. Got some very good ideas, and plan to continue discussing outsourcing of high-tech jobs tomorrow in New Hampshire
Several people wanted to hear more about intellectual property, so I thought I would focus on that today. The first priority of intellectual property law is to foster innovation and progress for our society. To achieve that goal, the law must protect the rights of inventors. And there must be a fair balance between the scope of those rights and the public interest.
I’m very concerned that some forms of IP law have lost that balance. The example on which I have worked most is drug patent law. When drug companies create a drug that reduces pain or cures disease, they of course deserve a fair return. But drug patents should not last forever, and they should not be extended through legal manipulation. Unfortunately, many drug manufacturers routinely try to block legitimate competition from generic drugs by making meritless patent claims just as their real patent protection is expiring. After hearing about these problems firsthand in the Senate Health Committee, I helped write legislation to prevent these abuses and to make sure that lower-cost generic drugs reach the market without improper delays. A version of that bill is one of the few good parts of the prescription drug benefit now being negotiated.
Concern about excessive patent protection goes beyond prescription drugs. The Federal Trade Commission just issued a provocative study recommending substantial changes in the way our patent system works. [It’s here: http://www.ftc.gov/opa/2003/10/cpreport.htm.] This is another important issue on which I would welcome views from readers here. And I’ll have more to say about IP tomorrow.
Thanks for all the great responses to my last post. Yesterday was a busy day because of the Rock the Vote debate. I was ready to talk about technology issues, but the questioners had other things on their minds. As happens almost everywhere I go, I got a question about jobs. And that got me thinking about the many connections between technology and jobs. Everyone knows how the tech boom of the late nineties created wealth for Americans. But today, we’re seeing a very different trend: high-tech jobs moving overseas to countries like India. In every state where I campaign, I meet people who feel like they did everything they were supposed to do—like staying in school and getting high-level skills—and yet they are still losing work as their jobs leave America.
As Andy Grove highlighted in a thoughtful speech a few weeks ago, there is a real risk that key elements of the technology sector will soon leave America the way other industries have. We can’t afford to let that happen. And it does not have to happen—if we pursue policies very different from those of this administration.
Over the long-run restoring fiscal order will be essential to attracting the private investment that entrepreneurs need. We need even more investment in education, including science and engineering—China is graduating 500,000 engineers each year, compared to well under 100,000 per year here. We need to get kids when they are young, and excite them about science. I will double funding for K-12 teacher training, and increase resources for science education. If we don’t get the next generation interested in technology, we risk becoming technology followers, rather than leaders.
As I talked about on Monday, we need to extend broadband access across America—in very important ways, a business in New York can be closer to an affiliate in India than a shop in rural South Carolina, just because of the difference in broadband access.
We need more investment in R&D to ensure our businesses stay on the cutting edge. We also need to make sure trade deals include labor and environmental standards that are fair to workers overseas and here at home. We need to fix our tax code to eliminate incentives for companies to move abroad-incentives that survive because of special interest deals. In their place, we need to create incentives to keep jobs here.
There’s much more to be said and done—I’m going to be giving a speech outlining more ideas in the coming weeks. Would love to hear your thoughts.
Thanks to Larry Lessig for inviting me to blog here this week. I’ve been blogging on my campaign’s website for a while now, and I really enjoy it. It’s a chance to exchange about ideas instead of soundbites and speeches.
The Internet is the most extraordinary technological innovation in decades. In the small towns where I grew up, it has become an economic engine. In the after-school center my wife and I started, it’s an educational tool. And on this blog and countless like it, the Internet is changing our democracy.But we will only realize the full potential of the Internet if government is smart. I don’t mean paternalistic or heavy-handed. I mean smart. The government has to defend the values that have made the Internet what it is—innovation, competition, diversity, democracy.
Those are not the values of the Bush administration. This administration is about helping the insiders who put them where they are. That’s the thread connecting the no-bid contracts for Halliburton, the gutting of clean air laws for the sake of the oil industry, and the policies of their Federal Communications Commission. First the FCC allowed a handful of media giants to consolidate their power at the expense of diversity and democracy. Now they want to give away hundreds of billions of dollars in spectrum rights to another group of companies. The FCC’s policies threaten the freedom and openness that have defined the Internet.
We ought to be making sure every poor kid in every big city and small town gets the same Internet access as my own small children. This administration, of course, has no policy to do that. The FCC chairman actually compared the “digital divide” to a “Mercedes divide”—as though the Internet would be a luxury in coming years. (And never mind that this administration is busy widening the real Mercedes divide with their tax policies.)
The challenge is to preserve what is great about the Internet and at the same time expand high-speed access to the Internet, including cable, DSL, and wireless. That will require creative thinking. I’ll talk about several ideas over the coming days and weeks.
But today, I’ll close with a word about just one technology: wireless. I see a lot of wireless as I campaign—from the farms of Iowa to the classrooms at Dartmouth. At the Rock the Vote debate tomorrow, we’re going to be getting questions by wireless. Right now, “Wi-Fi” is offering mobility and encouraging affordable broadband in places that wouldn’t have it otherwise. But the FCC could do more to encourage wireless —with market reforms that get rid of outdated license constraints and free up more unused spectrum for sharing. At the same time, no company should be getting exclusive rights to the airwaves for free. We’ve seen enough corporate giveaways already.
That’s just one idea, but I’ve already gone on for a while. I’m in Iowa today and then in Boston tomorrow for the debate. If I can’t respond to your comments immediately, my policy director, Robert Gordon, will jump in. I look forward to hearing your thoughts on this post, and sharing more of my own thoughts in the days ahead.
« Back to Lessig News
« Back to the Lessig Blog
This work is licensed under a
Creative Commons License.