Public ownership is key. Traditional private-owned IP prevents diffusion and lead to wealth concentration
McCann 20, researcher at the New Economics Foundation interested in systemic and radical reform of the economy and the creation of a twenty-first century commons. He is co- author (with Stewart Lansley and Steve Schifferes) of Remodelling Capitalism: How social wealth funds can transform Britain. He is also part of the movements to reform money, author of Scotpound: A digital currency for the common good and co- author of the book People Powered Money; to reform land, writing about Common Ground Trusts and a founder of the Land Justice Network; and the digital economy, with recent publications including Blocking the Data Stalkers and Digital Self Control. (Duncan, “Commoning Intellectual Property: Public funding and the creation of a knowledge commons,” Common Wealth, https://assets-global.website-files.com/62306a0b42f386df612fe5b9/637dfe77345b29128b30d9e0_Commoning%20Intellectual%20Property.pdf)//BB
Many of the most valuable assets in contemporary capitalism are not physical assets like land, buildings or machinery, but creations of the collective human intellect, such as a copyright on a design or patent on an innovation. Because these ethereal concepts cannot be possessed and protected like physical objects or space, a specific legal and policy architecture has been created giving extensive rights to the owners of this ‘intellectual property.’ The principle right is the exclusion of others from using one’s intellectual property without explicit permission, with those who do subject to legal action. Intellectual property is a relatively new concept, emerging in the late 15th century in the Venetian Republic, where exclusive rights began to be offered to those introducing new innovations, either through import or invention.1 In 1624, England enacted the Statute of Monopolies2, which rewarded inventors with strong property rights over their innovations and enabled them to capture significant monetary rewards. Some have argued that this incentivised innovation and enabled the industrial revolution to flourish in Britain3 This idea was so powerful that it was incorporated into Article One of the US constitution, which states that Congress should, “promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors to the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries.”4 As time progressed, and the US established itself as a global innovation superpower, it became received wisdom that intellectual property in the form of copyright, trademark and patent protection was necessary to encourage innovation and the creation of new ideas and inventions such a machines, drugs, computer software, books, music, literature and films. As the products of collective thinking, wide-reaching intellectual communities and the sharing of ideas, this logic of protecting the fruits of private resource and capital investment does not, in many respects, make intuitive sense, although some have argued forcefully against this, by positing that impedes innovation and concentrates wealth.5 However as the public sector has engaged more actively in funding research and development (R&D) using public money, the intellectual property that emerges from that research has not become the protected property of the public realm; rather, it is currently enclosed and appropriated by private owners. Although public sector intervention has often been focused on addressing specific market failures - with benefits accruing to the public sector through the newly functioning markets, thereby creating jobs and extra tax receipts, the following section outlines, how this role for the state in investment has changed over time.