In his book, Thomas Friedman brings up the idea of intellectual property ownership. He wonders that if, in his "flattened" world, people should have any right to their intellectual property or if it should belong to the people. I take a rather strong stance on this topic.

I do not like the idea of working hard for something and then having to share that with others. It can be applied many ways in life. For instance, if I am doing a group research project with several other of my peers, I want to be sure that I receive a good grade. That means I will work as hard as I can in order to receive the best grade possible. My GPA is important for me as I am trying to maintain a minimum standard for myself. Well, say the other members do not care about their grade. I will work hard and they will reap the benefits of my labor. Of course, that would make me unhappy because they did nothing yet were still rewarded. That would put me in a position of doing the entire project alone so at least I would have the satisfaction of it being done right. If others would not contribute, they should not be able to be rewarded.

This is what would happen if for some reason copyrights and patents were done away with. No one would spend the time to invent or improve upon an item because it would give him or her no direct benefit. For instance, why would a person devote his life to developing an innovative piece of computer software if it would just be shared with everyone? That person would not want to just give his work away. Maybe he could develop it for himself, but why should other people be able to free ride on another's hard labor? It could then be possible that the world would miss out on incredible technologies or products.

It is for this reason that copyrighting and patenting were devised. It is a way for the creator to be able to reap some benefit from his hard work. That would motivate the individual to pour his time and energy into his work and possibly come up with something amazing. If copyrights and patents were ignored, that person would likely not work as hard at his task.

Recently, there has been some discussion in Washington about pharmaceutical companies and the length of time they should be able to hold exclusive rights to the formula of a medication. The theory is that if the companies hold shorter patents, then generic brands will be able to manufacture cheaper alternatives. This is said to be better for the average American consumer because it will allow them to purchase cheaper, generic medications sooner.

But I ask, is it really better for the consumer? I think not for the following reason. If big name drug companies like Pfizer or Merck would not reap as much financial reward from their research, would they be as inclined to pour years of research and nearly a billion dollars into a new product? Even if they did produce new medications, they likely would not be of the same quality as before.

I became a victim of theft of intellectual property a few months ago. I took a picture of an item I was selling on a popular internet auction site. That picture made me quite a bit of money over the course of the several months I was selling the product. I later saw another person using my exact image to sell his product (which was similar--not identical). It took me several weeks of phone calls and letters to get the situation rectified. I am not saying that my experience was on as grand of scale as the music or motion picture industry, but I became angry with the person who stole my picture. If he liked it so much, maybe he should have taken the time to take his own pictures.

In conclusion, there is a reason we have patents and copyrights today. They protect the individual responsible for the material and give that person some sort of financial benefit for his time and effort invested. If we get rid of that, we would only be inventing for the good of the people. Leave that for Mother Russia.