Like what you've read?

On Line Opinion is the only Australian site where you get all sides of the story. We don't
charge, but we need your support. Here�s how you can help.

  • Advertise

    We have a monthly audience of 70,000 and advertising packages from $200 a month.

  • Volunteer

    We always need commissioning editors and sub-editors.

  • Contribute

    Got something to say? Submit an essay.

 The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
On Line Opinion logo ON LINE OPINION - Australia's e-journal of social and political debate


On Line Opinion is a not-for-profit publication and relies on the generosity of its sponsors, editors and contributors. If you would like to help, contact us.


RSS 2.0

Trading our intellectual property for a lamb chop ...

By Dale Spender - posted Friday, 24 August 2007

Australia - are we the world’s most innovative and inventive country?

Whether Australia is the world’s most innovative/inventive country is an interesting question to ask - but its not a very helpful one if we want to know if such an achievement is an asset: for the test is not whether or not we can invent - it’s whether or not we can commercialise our inventions, so that they become assets.

Certainly, Australia has achieved enormous success in its sheer number of inventions (particularly with its small population base). But this country is but an amateur in comparison to the United States when it comes to converting inventions into the new wealth of intellectual property. (And given America’s history of patent theft and piracy - this might not be a model Australia chooses to follow.)


More than any other country, the United States has a longer history, and a more explicit policy of protecting intellectual property: its own.

Unlike Australia - which still has no national IP (intellectual property) policy, the United States began with an understanding of the importance of commercialisation.

The founding fathers of the American constitution explicitly stated that Congress had the power to “promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries”.

What the Constitution did not state, (but which became the reality) was that this exclusive right applied then only to American citizens, and that it was always meant to serve American interests. It is one reason that in the 21st century, America owns most of the world’s intellectual property, and that regardless of successful inventions, Australia owns very little.

From its first days of independence, the United States placed the greatest emphasis on the development of a “home-grown” American industry - by any means. And to do this, says Pat Choate, himself an American citizen, the Americans stole “ideas and technology from the rest of the world, without embarrassment, apology or compensation” (2005, p17-18).

America hasn’t been the only country to adopt a national policy of pirating other countries trade secrets and industrial know-how, (Japan and China are more recent examples): but it was the first to develop an open culture of piracy.


Throughout the 19th century, for example, America boldly and blatantly pirated all the works of the great English novelists. Charles Dickens complained and protested that he was losing millions in the United States, as his highly popular books sold (in extraordinary numbers) for a mere fraction of their cost in England, and without one penny going into his pockets.

But the Americans justified their piracy. They wanted to promote a culture of mass literacy and education; they needed workers who could read and write (and follow manuals) in their expanding factory system. And the only way they could achieve this was by providing their citizens with inexpensive literature.

(When in the late 20th century, countries such as India came forward with much the same argument of educating the masses, and sought cheap educational texts from the United States - American politicians had either forgotten their own history, or decided that the Indian argument was not convincing.)

  1. Pages:
  2. Page 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. All

Discuss in our Forums

See what other readers are saying about this article!

Click here to read & post comments.

19 posts so far.

Share this:
reddit this reddit thisbookmark with Del.icio.usdigg thisseed newsvineSeed NewsvineStumbleUpon StumbleUponsubmit to propellerkwoff it

About the Author

Dale spender is a researcher and writer on education and the new technologies.

Other articles by this Author

All articles by Dale Spender

Creative Commons LicenseThis work is licensed under a Creative Commons License.

Article Tools
Comment 19 comments
Print Printable version
Subscribe Subscribe
Email Email a friend

About Us Search Discuss Feedback Legals Privacy