从海盗到《权力的游戏》：知识产权的悖论

让我们来探讨知识产权为何与真正的资本主义，也就是市场经济，并不兼容。

从历史角度来看，知识产权，更确切地说，专利，最初是君主授予其宠臣的垄断经营证书。这种特权与王权和强制力紧密相连，与自由意志相悖，与资本主义精神相违背。最早获得这类王家特许权的生意是海上打劫的海盗。讽刺的是，如今，人们将侵犯知识产权的行为称为“盗版”，而这个词在英文中和“海盗”是同一个词。

现今知识产权制度的根源可以追溯到美国建国时期的宪法。美国建国者认为专利保护能够促进创新，这是一种权宜之计。然而，这种观点存在争议。

例如，有些人认为爱因斯坦是在为瑞士专利局工作期间，思考并形成了狭义相对论的理论，并将其视为专利制度为人类带来的益处。但这只是一个巧合。瑞士是钟表之国，爱因斯坦在瑞士专利局工作期间接触到大量关于同步时钟的发明专利，这促使他思考“同时”的本质，并最终得出相对性原理。然而，如果你真正了解广义相对论和狭义相对论，就会知道，狭义相对论的核心并非相对性原理，而是抛弃当时广泛认同的“以太假说”，并提出了光速的不变性。爱因斯坦的狭义相对论与瑞士专利局的工作并没有直接的因果关系，培养伟大的物理学家也不是保护知识产权的初衷。

知识产权的保护初衷，正如美国国父们在宪法中所述，是鼓励创新，让创新者获得独占收益，从而激励更多的人进行发明创造，最终带来更多的创新和财富。然而，这种理论缺乏现实证据支持。它只描述了知识产权保护的正面效应，而忽略了其负面效应。要证明知识产权保护有意义，至少需要证明其正面效应大于负面效应。

从功利主义的角度来看，专利保护和知识产权保护实际上限制了新思想和新技术的传播和应用，这是显而易见的负面效应。此外，知识产权保护是否真的为消费者带来了更多选择和更丰富的商品？答案是否定的。

对于有知识产权的作品，例如电视剧，知识产权保护的影响更为明显。比如，美剧《权力的游戏》虽然前几季非常精彩，但最后几季却质量下降严重，被公认为烂尾。如果没有知识产权保护，在HBO拍出前几季大火之后，其他电视台可能会制作相同题材的剧集，这可能会导致更丰富的选择，即使其中有些作品质量参差不齐，也难保不会出现优秀作品。再不济，竞争压力也会促使HBO制作组认真创作剩下的剧集，而不是敷衍了事。

---

Let's explore why intellectual property is incompatible with true capitalism, that is, the market economy.
​Historically, intellectual property, and more specifically patents, were originally monopolistic certificates granted by monarchs to their favourites. This privilege is bound up with kingship and coercive power, contrary to free will, contrary to the spirit of capitalism. The first to obtain such royal privileges were the pirates of the sea. The irony is that today, people refer to intellectual property violations as "piracy."
​The roots of today's intellectual property system can be traced back to the founding Constitution of the United States. The founders of the United States believed that patent protection would promote innovation as a expedient measure. However, this view is controversial.
​For example, some believe that Einstein thought and formulated his theory of special relativity while working for the Swiss Patent Office, and saw it as a benefit to humanity from the patent system. But that's just a coincidence. Switzerland is the country of clocks and watches, and Einstein came into contact with a large number of invention patents on synchronous clocks during his work in the Swiss Patent Office, which prompted him to think about the nature of "simultaneousness" and finally came to the principle of relativity. However, if you really understand general relativity and special relativity, you will know that the core of special relativity is not the principle of relativity, but the rejection of the widely accepted "static hypothesis" and proposed the universality of the speed of light. Einstein's special theory of relativity is not directly causal to the work of the Swiss Patent Office, nor is the cultivation of great physicists the original purpose of protecting intellectual property.
​The original purpose of intellectual property protection, as stated in the US Constitution by the founding Fathers, was to encourage innovation and give innovators exclusive benefits, thereby incentivise more people to invent, and ultimately lead to more innovation and wealth. However, this theory lacks practical evidence to support it. It describes only the positive effects of intellectual property protection and ignores the negative effects. To prove that IP protection makes sense, at the very least, it needs to be shown that the positive effects outweigh the negative ones.
​From the perspective of publicism, patent protection and intellectual property protection actually limit the dissemination and application of new ideas and technologies, which is a clear negative effect. In addition, does intellectual property protection really lead to more choices and more goods for consumers? The answer is no.
​For private works, such as television dramas, the impact of intellectual property protection is even more pronounced. For example, although the first few seasons of the US TV series Game of Thrones were excellent, the quality of the last few seasons has been seriously degraded. Without intellectual property protection, other networks could produce similar shows after HBO's blockbuster first few seasons, which could lead to a richer selection, even if some of them are of uneven quality. The competitive pressure will also encourage the HBO production team to seriously create the remaining series, rather than muddle through.