How so?

The Questions where:

1) What should the objective of IP policy be?

As a member of the public my interest in IP law is that it should benefit me somehow and that means it should show some benefit to me the public, if it doesn’t promote the progress or spread of knowledge and only grants monopolies to people who will threaten democratic values like free speech and can be used as a powerful censor tool with a hint of legitimacy without providing financial benefits to me the public why should IP law even exist?
To make it more expensive for me the public to buy something?
To make it harder for me the public to find an “authorized” seller?
To censor me the public in a way that seems legitimate?
Why should me the public abide by such things then?
It does not even stimulate commerce, it does exactly the opposite, it is an exclusion tool and one that we have thousands of years of accounts of how bad monopolies are and how detrimental their effects are.

2) How well co-ordinated is the development of IP policy across government?

Extremely coordinated, the government and the IP holders are at times almost like one and the same.

Is IP policy functioning effectively on a cross-departmental basis?

Apparently yes.

What changes to the machinery of government do you believe would deliver better IP policy outcomes?

The end of IP policy would have a better outcome in policy terms, it sheds the burden of having to waste money on “protecting” monopolists that through unfair advantage stop the production of goods and the delivery of services. That is no small amount, further it free the courts for attending to more important matters like real crime, not invented crimes that no one can prove harms anything.
We have undeniable proof that IP law is not necessary, Arduino is a open source hardware manufacturer based in Italy, their designs can be copied, modified, distributed and even sold by others without having to pay anything back and still they make millions, like Arduino there are others doing the same.

3) There have been numerous attempts to update the IP framework in the light of changes brought about by the digital environment. How successful have these been and what lessons can be learnt from these for policy developments?

Disastrous, it criminalized and burdened the public, it eroded the public trust on government institutions and their ability to command and it showed people that they should be very aware of their own government and pay more attention to what it is doing. Lessons learned? IP like any other monopoly is an horrendous thing to inflict upon the public and there will be consequences to it.

4) How effective is the Intellectual Property Office and what should its priorities be?

Ineffective and I find it amusing that it needs to be stated again what the priorities of it should be, it should promote the progress through the spread of knowledge or their priorities should be whatever the answer to question “1)” is.

5) UK IP policy sits within European and supranational agreements. How should the UK government co-ordinate its policy at an international level and what should it do to promote IP abroad to encourage economic growth?

Promote openness and curtail monopolies? But of course that means not promoting IP abroad or at home but actually ending it, so the market can find their own solutions.

Do you have examples of good and poor practice in this area?

– Speculative invoicing which is the act of sending threatning letters to people with the intuit of not righting a wrong but to cash in on the fear of the law. (bad)
– Patent trolling where non-practicing entities threaten the people who make something. (bad)
This one also highlights the problem with an IP system that allows the transfer of IP to others, which innevitably will converge into a single super pool which will exclude everyone except the wealthiest of the wealthiest and can be used against countries since others can just buy the IP and stop locals from being able to enter the market.

There are more reasons why IP should end.

6) Protecting, and enforcement of, the IP framework often sits in very different departments to those that develop IP policy and those that have responsibility for the industries most affected. What impact does this have and how can it be improved?

It has no negative impact since IP cannot be protected from the public and if done so it will generate the right environment for rebellion to improve matters end IP laws and open the market, that is better protection against external forces and competitors that won’t be able to exclude the locals from doing anything and force those people to find solutions based on cooperation and mutual interests instead of mandated obedience.