If companies paying for people to develop IP shouldn't make profit off of intellectual property, then it would make sense that the person creating the invention should not get paid either. Our patent system may be in need of a serious tune up, but people with a high brain to brawn ratio are not allowed to profit from the fruits of their labors, they will stop and go move boxes or do something else that will pay the bills.
IP absolutely IS property. It is the result of an investment of hard assets to create an innovation - process, product, etc. - and it is entirely appropriate to expect protection of the ownership on that newly created asset in order to achieve a return on investment. Without that, what could possibly be the motivation for continued investment? More to the point, what would finance that ongoing investment? You have to generate profits from innovation in order to continue to fuel the process.
come on people - IP is not property. limited monopolies are granted for a purpose: to grow the whole, not to permit innovation to be hoarded. that's what's so fundamentally broken in the current worldwide IP regime: dumb MBA-think has distorted the concept into some kind of design-wise turf war, when the purpose of IP protection is to maximize innovation by letting others build on your ideas. in other words, IP doesn't mean you're somehow "owed" profits because you came up with something novel and non-obvious. (not to mention the fact that current IP schemes make a mockery of the novel/non-obvious requirement!)
I think China will want to have it both ways. Strong IP protection in order to play in the global marketplace, but reserving an idealogical right to co-opt it for the good of China. The west will depend on pragmatism to trump nationalism, which works in the short term. And the short term is all the west understands.
IP protection and, in general, moral standard have to be improved to make innovation possible. IP protection will guarantee the invention is not stolen internally. Moral standard is important in teh area of pharmaceutical research. Law may help restore the order.
Drones are, in essence, flying autonomous vehicles. Pros and cons surrounding drones today might well foreshadow the debate over the development of self-driving cars. In the context of a strongly regulated aviation industry, "self-flying" drones pose a fresh challenge. How safe is it to fly drones in different environments? Should drones be required for visual line of sight – as are piloted airplanes? Join EE Times' Junko Yoshida as she moderates a panel of drone experts.