G4


R


KLMNO EZRA KLEIN In battle of fashion copycats vs. copyright, let the knock-off win klein from G1 Movies, music and


pharmaceuticals all use some form of patent or copyright protection. The idea is simple: If people can’t profit from innovation, they won’t innovate. So to encourage the development of stuff we want, we give the innovators something very valuable: exclusive access to the profit from their innovations. We’re so bought into the logic that we allow companies to patent human genes.


And companies love copyright.


They love it so much that they persuaded Congress to pass the Sonny Bono Act, which extended individual copyright protections to the life of the author, plus 70 more years; and corporate copyrights to 120 years from creation, or 95 years from publication, whichever is earlier. That’s an absurdly long time, and it belies the original point of patents. Does anyone seriously believe that a 40-year-old with a money-making idea is going to hold back because someone can mimic it 20 years after he dies? At a certain point, copyrights stop protecting innovation and begin protecting profit. They scare off future inventors who want to take a 60-year-old idea and use it as the foundation to build something new and interesting. That’s the difficulty of copyrights, patents and other forms of intellectual protection: Too little, and the first innovation won’t happen. Too much, and the second innovation — the one relying on that first — won’t either.


Which is why we have to be


careful when one industry or another demands more copyright protection. “Intellectual property is legalized monopoly,” says James Boyle, a professor at Duke Law School. “And like any monopoly, its tendency is to raise prices and diminish availability. We should have a high burden of proof for whether it’s necessary.” Drug development probably


meets the burden of proof. It costs hundreds of millions of dollars to bring a drug to market. If Pfizer could just copy the drugs Novartis develops, Novartis wouldn’t have much reason to


SUNDAY, AUGUST 22, 2010


CHIP SOMODEVILLA/GETTY IMAGES Sen. Charles E. Schumer (D-NY), center, shown this month, has introduced the Innovative Design Protection and Piracy Prevention Act.


develop drugs. Recipes don’t. You can’t patent


dessert. Just ask Jean-Georges Vongerichten. Years ago, he created a chocolate cake with a molten core of liquid chocolate. The recipe became a sensation. Which meant it appeared on


Celebrate the 20th Year with


menus all across the country, with no credit to JGV. That’s a bummer for its creator, but a boon to all of us who don’t live in New York. We get to eat it anyway. And yet, innovation continues apace in the food world. JGV is still a rich man. We can have our cake and eat it, too. (Sorry, sorry.)


So which is fashion? Well, look around. Sure seems like there are a lot of clothing options, and at all price points. The big fashion houses are raking in billions of dollars in profits. What’s the problem we’re trying to solve? Well, there’s the principle of the thing. Designers don’t like being copied. It doesn’t seem fair. But there’s nothing fair about legal monopolies, either. The question is which benefits consumers more. Then there’s the matter of


PRESENTED BY


August 19– September 5


The smash hit returns this summer to


Sidney Harman Hall! (610 F St. NW)


Don’t miss the


Target Family Fun Fair Saturday, August 21, 2010 10 a.m.–2 p.m.


Sidney Harman Hall For more information visit


ShakespeareTheatre.org/FFA or call 202.547.1122


Philip L.


WITH LEADERSHIP SUPPORT FROM: Friends of


Graham Fund Free For All


and the Real Estate Community Partners


ADDITIONAL SUPPORT PROVIDED BY: General Dynamics Information Technology


MetroOpensDoors.com


Photo of Samantha Soule by Scott Suchman.


P53 2x10.5 1 Deal! 7 for


tickets online through the Free For All Lottery!


Enter to win your FREE


profit: Schwartz is threatening to take Wang’s profits. In theory, that might dissuade Wang from making new dresses. But America has never had copyright protection for dresses, and Wang keeps making — and profiting — from them. Meanwhile, Schwartz’s copies make versions of Wang’s designs available to more consumers. That has value, too. Fordham University’s Susan Scafidi, who helped craft the


legislation, says that it’s actually small designers that we need to worry about. They get ripped off, and because they don’t have the name recognition of a Vera Wang, there’s little they can do about it, and so they have to close shop. But how many of them? There’s anecdotal evidence of this, but record numbers are signing up for fashion-design school and the American fashion industry has emerged and thrived in the absence of copyright. And what about the dangers of


the new law? Schumer’s office has worked to protect against frivolous lawsuits. The language is very narrow, and cynical plaintiffs would have a tough road ahead of them. But the letter of the law does not always govern the effect of the law. Small designers and retailers don’t have attorneys on retainer, and if bigger firms take the opportunity to start sending out a lot of intimidating cease-and-desist letters, or opportunists try to patent everything in sight and sue their way to prosperity, we could, at the least, see the legal fees and threats pile up — and ultimately consumers will pay for that. Then there’s the question of


creep. A judge could interpret the law as broader than Congress intends, or a future Congress


could expand the law beyond what Schumer intends — as has happened in other areas of copyright. If we’re going to risk all that,


the law needs to carry some serious benefits. And it might have one: innovation. “We have Allan Schwartz and six other companies making slavish copies of Vera Wang,” Scafidi says. “But suppose we have this law in place. The other companies can’t copy it exactly, so they go to their designers and create six or seven versions at the affordable price point.” In other words, the ability to copy might reduce the need to innovate. Jennifer Jenkins, an


intellectual property expert at Duke, disagrees. “In fashion, copying has benefits,” she says. First, knock-offs make designs trendy, and that increases the value of the original, and thus the incentives for designers to innovate.


Second, it makes them


affordable, so more people can wear them. Vera Wang and Allan Schwartz aren’t selling to the same crowds, and there are a lot more people shopping at discount stores than at designer boutiques (which is why many designers are now licensing their name to retail outlets like Target). And third, it speeds up


MICHELLE SINGLETARY Basic lessons on credit cards for students singletary from G1


The age restrictions and co-signer requirements of the CARD Act were meant to teach students financial restraint. But if they can still get through the loopholes in the law, the efforts to help them steer clear of credit card debt will be for naught. Yes, I know many kids are


financially responsible and can handle credit. I hear from parents all the time who think it’s important to expose their children to credit as a means of teaching them how to manage money. However, using credit only teaches you to be a debtor. I know all too well the consequences of putting a credit card — with little


or no supervision — in the hands of a financially naive young person. I hear their horror stories long after the pizza, clothing or spring-break charges. With credit, they learn how easy it is to live above their means. But I know I’m swimming against the tide. So, if you’re determined to co-sign for a college student, at least be sure that he or she has a good understanding of how to use credit as wisely as possible. To help you with this


conversation, CreditCards.com (a really informative Web site) has posted information about the section of the CARD Act pertaining to students. Search for “How credit card reform impacts young adults under 21.” You’ll


also find on the site a credit card contract for parents and adult children created by John E. Whitcomb, a doctor and author of “Capitate Your Kids.” You can also download the contract from Whitcomb’s site at capitateyourkids.com. The contract calls for parents to show the child how to pay off the balance every month by scheduling regular sessions to review the credit card bill. The son or daughter agrees, among other things, to stick to an agreed-upon spending limit and to pay off purchases or services by the next billing cycle. If the bill is not paid in full, the card will be canceled immediately. If you’re just going to sign this contract, tuck it away and not


enforce its terms, don’t bother. If you’re determined to allow your child to get a credit card and you’re serious about making this a teachable moment, however, this contract is a great way to emphasize the child’s responsibilities and yours as a co-signer.


singletarym@washpost.com


Readers can write to Michelle Singletary at The Washington Post, 1150 15th St. NW, Washington, D.C. 20071.


Comments and questions are welcome, but because of the volume of mail, personal responses are not always possible. Please note that comments or questions might be used in a future column, with the writer’s name, unless a specific request to do otherwise is indicated.


7 Days for the Price of 1!


Have we got a deal for you! When you buy the Sunday Post for just $1.85 a week, we’ll give you the rest of the week for free! Tat’s 7 days of home-delivery for the price of only one.


For fast service, call: 1-800-873-1155, Ext. 17 or visit www.wpsubscribe.com/greatrate


Offer expires 10/31/10. Available to new subscribers only. Restrictions may apply. RP26 RPNX S360 4x2


innovation, as fashion designers have to keep churning out new products to stay ahead of the copycats.


But perhaps the strongest argument is that America’s apparel industry isn’t broken — so why try and fix it? “America is the world fashion leader,” said Steven Kold, director of the Council of Fashion Designers of America, the lead trade group in support of the Schumer bill, “and yet it is basically the only industrialized country that does not provide protection for fashion design.” Run that by me one more time?


We’re the world leader in fashion, so we should change our policy regime to mimic our lagging competitors? Too often, copyrights are used to protect profit. It’s no coincidence that the rise of the Internet — which led to an explosion of low-cost distribution networks, new forms of competition and unexpected types of innovation — has also led to calls for new and stronger forms of intellectual protection. Consumers have been told this is all for them. But it isn’t. There’s a reason we’re skeptical of monopolies, and we shouldn’t forget that even when they’re dressed up as “copyrights.” kleine@washpost.com


Page 1  |  Page 2  |  Page 3  |  Page 4  |  Page 5  |  Page 6  |  Page 7  |  Page 8  |  Page 9  |  Page 10  |  Page 11  |  Page 12  |  Page 13  |  Page 14  |  Page 15  |  Page 16  |  Page 17  |  Page 18  |  Page 19  |  Page 20  |  Page 21  |  Page 22  |  Page 23  |  Page 24  |  Page 25  |  Page 26  |  Page 27  |  Page 28  |  Page 29  |  Page 30  |  Page 31  |  Page 32  |  Page 33  |  Page 34  |  Page 35  |  Page 36  |  Page 37  |  Page 38  |  Page 39  |  Page 40  |  Page 41  |  Page 42  |  Page 43  |  Page 44  |  Page 45  |  Page 46  |  Page 47  |  Page 48  |  Page 49  |  Page 50  |  Page 51  |  Page 52  |  Page 53  |  Page 54  |  Page 55  |  Page 56  |  Page 57  |  Page 58  |  Page 59  |  Page 60  |  Page 61  |  Page 62  |  Page 63  |  Page 64  |  Page 65  |  Page 66  |  Page 67  |  Page 68  |  Page 69  |  Page 70  |  Page 71  |  Page 72  |  Page 73  |  Page 74  |  Page 75  |  Page 76  |  Page 77  |  Page 78  |  Page 79  |  Page 80  |  Page 81  |  Page 82  |  Page 83  |  Page 84  |  Page 85  |  Page 86  |  Page 87  |  Page 88  |  Page 89  |  Page 90  |  Page 91  |  Page 92  |  Page 93  |  Page 94  |  Page 95  |  Page 96  |  Page 97  |  Page 98  |  Page 99  |  Page 100  |  Page 101  |  Page 102  |  Page 103  |  Page 104  |  Page 105  |  Page 106  |  Page 107  |  Page 108  |  Page 109  |  Page 110  |  Page 111  |  Page 112  |  Page 113  |  Page 114  |  Page 115  |  Page 116  |  Page 117  |  Page 118  |  Page 119  |  Page 120  |  Page 121  |  Page 122  |  Page 123  |  Page 124  |  Page 125  |  Page 126  |  Page 127  |  Page 128  |  Page 129  |  Page 130  |  Page 131  |  Page 132  |  Page 133  |  Page 134  |  Page 135  |  Page 136  |  Page 137  |  Page 138  |  Page 139  |  Page 140  |  Page 141  |  Page 142  |  Page 143  |  Page 144  |  Page 145  |  Page 146  |  Page 147  |  Page 148  |  Page 149  |  Page 150  |  Page 151  |  Page 152  |  Page 153  |  Page 154  |  Page 155  |  Page 156  |  Page 157  |  Page 158  |  Page 159  |  Page 160