One side of the Intellectual Property argument is that anyone who creates something should have the end-product protected from theft, imitation, and a use that may not have been originally foreseen. In other words, companies as well as individuals who have created something, hardware or software, even though it may exist only on a disk, (as long as it is more than an idea- but produced, or plans drawn up, copyright or patented) are entitled to the fruits of their labors or research.
The other side of this argument results in companies utilizing what is described as "Tarzan economicsa..Desperately holding on to one vine- their old business model- until they can grab hold of the next one" (Levy, 2001, p. 60). While Levy deals primarily with the effect of Napster on the music and recording industry, perhaps the most serious battle about Intellectual property comes with the AIDS crisis, especially in poorer nations. The argument here is clear: the pharmaceutical companies who spend billions on R & R feel they are entitled to earn a fair profit from the results of that ER & D, even if it means maintaining prices at a level many poor people (and nations) cannot afford to pay. According to Taylor (2001):
Oxfam and allied aid organizations have recently accused the international pharmaceutical industry of using its influence to maintain a worldwide system of intellectual property law and enforcement that is now denying the world's poor access to essential medicines and blocking progress toward health for all (Taylor, 2001, p. 629).
While various public outcries about the dominance of drugs and their high prices have shamed some companies into promising to do more in less developed countries, nevertheless, their overall argument is that without such pricing they could not afford to spend the large sums they do on further research and development of newer, more powerful and efficacious medications.
True as this may be, to ...