Voting is open right now for the brand new Paladin League Resolutions. Here, we offer some insights to help guide your vote. Check out our review of the other LD resolution here.

No Wrong Answers

We wrote these resolutions, so this time we don't have a preference about which ones win. They both offer tremendous depth, a solid aff/neg balance, and support value-centric and application-centric case patterns. Your decision should be made based on which topic most interests you.

Resolved: Protection of intellectual property ought to be valued above open-source innovation."

Shoutout to Stoa

Credit where due: Stoa has offered this topic as a resolution option several times. They did the heavy lifting finding this awesome conflict. We just adjusted the wording to bring it up to a 5-star caliber. You might say we … ahem … open-source innovated on it.

What it Means

This is a comparative resolution, meaning it contrasts the worth of two conflicting subjects.

Protection of Intellectual Property: Anything that gives control of information to its creator.

If you write a song, you own that song. No one else gets to perform it unless they get your permission. You can choose to only give that permission to people who pay you.

Note that the resolution doesn't explicitly specify government protections. That greatly clarifies a lot of potential definition debates. For example, voluntarily giving your information away for free means you're not protecting your IP.

Open-source Innovation: Progress enabled by the unrestricted sharing of information.

Amazing things can happen when people share ideas without worrying about who takes credit or collects royalties. Open source has really shown in the world of software development. Mozilla Firefox, Linux, Ubuntu, VLC, GIMP, and Android are all open source.

A Perfect Conflict

Comparative resolutions must contain some conflict to be meaningful. Most pit two related ideas in which we sometimes have to make a choice, like the classic "freedom vs security." It is rare to see a resolution with a perfect conflict - where upholding one always hampers the other.

Yes, creators can choose to give their ideas to the world for free. But even that choice arguably undermines protection of intellectual property.

That makes this resolution very tight and removes some of the most tired arguments in value debate, like the forever-tedious "No Conflict" application response.

The Cases for Property

Here are some of our favorite affirmative case patterns.

Human right. Intellectual property (IP) is a human right, so violating it - regardless of the potential benefits - is unjust.
Capitalist Innovation. Protecting property rights incentivizes people to create new IP to sell. Application: Lockheed Martin.
Lifeblood of Commerce. By some estimates, 70-80% of the value of a company is its IP. It's impossible to conduct a modern business without proper IP protections. Application: Internet Piracy.
Red Flag. "Open Source" (OS) is just code for "voluntary communism." Communism is bad. This can be run in a standard case structure or, if you're fancy, as a kritik.

The Case for Open Source

Here are some of our favorite negative case patterns.

Innovation is Paramount. Anytime IP laws are enforced, they hinder innovation. Innovation is too important to concern ourselves with who takes credit. Application: COVID-19 treatment.
OS more efficient. Capitalist innovation is inefficient and limited; it means people compete by simultaneously creating basically the same thing. OS maximizes human potential by enabling cooperation. Application: Wikipedia.
IP throttles innovation. In an IP world, innovation is merely a step on the road to licensing fees. There's an initial surge in innovation followed by stagnation and isolation. OS leads to sustained long-term progress. Evidence: the Scrabble study.
Shared standards. OS fosters industrywide standards so everyone's products work together seamlessly. IP encourages the opposite: a weird new Apple charger every few years.
Democratization. IP locks people out of the development process. You have to get approval from the gatekeepers or amass a huge amount of capital and become a gatekeeper yourself. OS welcomes everyone to the table.
Property Bad. Property ownership is a perversion of the natural order. You cannot own a sunset. You ought not to be able to own a waterfall or an arrangement of words.
Human Rights Bad. The concept of human rights is unjust and ought to be thrown out in favor of some alternate, open-source-friendly philosophy.
Perfect Balance Objection. IP and OS should be balanced evenly, perhaps by fiercely protecting an innovation for a few years and then removing all protections. Applications: Disney, "It's a Wonderful Life."

Next time, we’ll dive in on Paladin’s policy resolutions.

Paladin LD Value 2020-21 Resolution Tour: Intellectual Property vs Open Source