Innovateforum.com runs an article on the value of IPRs and provides a list of common arguments for/against IP. The arguments supporting IP are well known. Those posited against IP, despite being widely hailed by open source and free software proponents, either do not refute IP's strengths upon closer inspection or are just not very considered.

I would add a couple more arguments to the article's list of the major arguments for IP (such as patents facilitating diffusion of innovation as companies license, IP enabling the decentralization of innovating activity thereby allowing small firms to specialize in R&D and then partner with other firms/manufacturers).

•…(IPRs) play a critical role in producing technological creativity, innovation and economic growth at home and abroad. Clearly, technological innovation would be crippled without the… (IP) protections that assure inventors and investors that their work will not be stolen. -Jerry Jasinowski, president of The Manufacturing Institute.
•A robust and dynamic industrial property system, and particularly the patent system, supports and encourages technological innovation, and brings more and better products onto the market. –World IP Assoc.
•Copyright protection in Asia will likely improve as the region's economies shift into higher-value industries that require innovation and creativity. –Global Forum on IP.

Citations used to represent views against IP:

•Patents don't always lead to profits. Indeed, in a study conducted earlier this year, we found ‘no relationship between the number of patents issued to an organization and its performance. –Booz Allen.
•An R&D budget or the number of patents filed by R&D simply measures a firm’s inventiveness, not its ability to innovate. -Forrester Research.
•…Profitable innovation comes not from inventing a new product, but from having a team of smart employees who figure out how to do a better job every time they interact with customers. -CEO of Good Technology.

Booz Allen is essentially correct. Many patents don’t make their way into successful products, or even any product, but I have to disagree that the number of patents a firm holds not correlating with its performance. Why? Well, simply look at Business Week, Fortune or any other publication that ranks firms by innovativeness or profitability. The top technology firms tend to hold many patents. No ranking company in the technology industries excludes IP from its strategies. Open source and free software proponents would have consumers think that because patents do not always signify innovation, and innovation does occur without patents, that they are not important at all.

The Forrester citation does express the truth that invention and innovation are different concepts. For one, innovation does not take place when there is no significant market adoption or impact, while inventiveness (and patents) can be understood as a way of getting there. Open source and free software proponents would have consumers believe that every tinkered variation of software code is innovation, despite inability to produce common programs/ functionalities and total lack of or insignificant market adoption.

I do not understand the quote from the CEO of Good Technology though. In fact, I hope his company’s investors wonder why its not doing so well when their chief states “Profitable innovation comes not from inventing a new product.” Well, innovateforum.com does describe Good Technology as ‘makers of a BlackBerry look-a-like.” In any case, what the Good Technology executive is expressing is emphasis on services rather than technology in his company's strategy. Open source and free software proponents hype up services business models as they clothe the mundane under banners of "revolutions" and "movements."