The world of intellectual property (IP) is rife with hypocrisy and rationalizations therefore.  Full of people who incessantly steal other people’s IP, while proffering ridiculous assertions to justify their heists.  And all them, they are doing everything they can to stop other people from stealing their IP.

I’m not even claiming that people always think they’re doing the right thing.  They may know they’re doing something dishonest, insensitive or manipulative, but they almost always think there’s a good reason for doing it.  They almost always think it will turn out for the best in the end.  And even it just turns out best for them because by definition what’s best for them is what’s best I’m trying to get what I want.  Which is what everybody does?”

The hypocrisy is brazen and blinding.  And the rationalizations are predictably ridiculous.  Containing bizarre assertions like:

In the IP World, the hypocrisy-rationalization nexus is embodied by people who take IP very seriously when it’s theirs – and totally un-seriously when it isn’t.

it is the property like a house and diamond ring- and may be just like physical items taking it without permission is a crime. There is no way around this fact, there is no loop holes or easy escapes from this argument no matter how you define the work and property. Intellectual property satisfies both categories.

And the same way people do a 9-5 and expect get paid. There is no difference with regards to intellectual work. And the only time people perform work in anon voluntary way, and not get paid

There is no serious counter argument that intellectual property of its creators should not first and foremost profit them; unless we are advocating slavery.

Rights of the gifted

People have an inalienable right to profit, much as they can from the fruit of their skills, knowledge and experience. We can consider an example of film industry. Filmmaking is profession just like surgeon, a teacher, or a pilot. Making film is a professional discipline which requires training and investment. So purchasing film builds the industry and insures the good future of a further film production

There are no good excuses to copy film if anyone doing those it claims not to profit from these activities

Why IP Rights Should Be Protected: The Classic Argument

One reason for IP laws is to allow IP creators to benefit from their work if artists create paintings after months of labor, then they deserve credit for painting them and the income from selling or exhibiting them. If a business comes up with an attractive marketing logo, then no other businesses should be allowed to use that logo to promote their own products without permission.

Protecting IP is also seen as a method of promoting creativity. If no one is allowed to copy another person’s work without permission then creativity is encouraged for everybody.

A flyer on IP rights protection published by Los Alamos National Laboratories, one of the premier research facilities in the nation, notes the financial value of intellectual property accrued from licenses and patents as a reason to protect IP rights.

There is currently underway an IP fight- that is full on hypocrisy overloaded.

Apple Sues Qualcomm over Patent Royalties in Antitrust Case

Apple Inc. sued Qualcomm Inc. accusing it of monopolizing the market for chips for wireless devices and withholding $1 billion in retaliation for cooperating with South Korean antitrust authorities.

Apple is demanding Qualcomm hand over money that was supposed to be a rebate for licensing fees. Qualcomm is holding back the money as punishment for Apple cooperating with Korean antitrust regulators, according to the complaint filed in San Diego, where Qualcomm is based.

Apple also wants back some of the billions of dollars it claims it was overcharged in “Qualcomm’s illegal scheme” to control the market for mobile phone chips. It wants a court to change how Qualcomm charges for its technology in the future.

Qualcomm, the largest maker of mobile phone chips, has been under fire by regulators around the world for its patent licensing practices. The lawsuit filed Friday is the first direct challenge by one of its biggest customers and threatens to upend how royalties are calculated by any owner of a patent on technology that underlies modern electronics.

Apple is facing pressure to squeeze more profit out of every iPhone after revenue declined last year for the first time since 2001, dragged down by lower handset sales. It typically sources the same component from several suppliers, which helps secure lower prices by forcing the manufacturers to compete on price.

Qualcomm fell 2.4 percent to $63 at the close in New York. Apple rose less than 1 percent to $120.

“It is quite clear that Apple’s claims are baseless,” Qualcomm General Counsel Don Rosenberg said in a statement. “Apple has intentionally mischaracterized our agreements and negotiations, as well as the enormity and value of the technology we have invented, contributed and shared with all mobile device makers through our licensing program.”

Qualcomm also accused Apple of encouraging regulators to attack Qualcomm in “various jurisdictions around the world,” by “misrepresenting facts and withholding information.”