Imagine a world where companies backed by their governments are staking claim to huge territories in foreign lands where they, and they alone, set the rules. Sound like 16th century? It isn't.
In the past few hundred years, Imperialistic nations have used their military, political and scientific superiority to harvest the treasures of the less mature ones. Now we are starting a whole new cycle based on Intellectual Property laws shoved down the throats of the immature countries through
- short sighted local politicians
- better organized mature capital
- better political organization of the mature countries.
Monopolistic power perpetuates and grows stronger
Instead of staking claim to land and physical resources they are staking claim to vast intellectual areas where they get monopoly stake (ie patent) for several years (a lifetime in internet age). During that time this monopoly/patent will give them pricing power and power to innovate which in-turn guarantees further monopolies. What I mean is, once you as a company have an income stream coming from monopolies, you can then divert that flow towards more IP (Intellectual Property) creating more monopolies for perpetuity.
Why can't companies and governments in the immature countries do this? Any one can. But these young countries and companies are going against companies and governments that already have a great competency in this area. How can a immature organization, that is unfamiliar with this form of imperialism, get it's act together in time to save itself some IP territory?
A lesson from the tragedies of the Native American experience
To give a historical example, the first successful English colony in North America was established in 1607. This was a small colony barely able to survive. From that point in time to the new constitution of North America was less than 200 years. Within that time frame the fate of the Native Americans, as inconsequential minority owners of North American territory, was sealed. There is a lot of similarity between the way the east views Intellectual Property and Native Americans viewed Land ownership. The very concept of ownership of certain things is foreign. Think about something like land. After all how can one own land? It is not created by man. It existed a long time before we were born and will continue to exist long after we are gone. So the native Americans gave up most of their territorial claim without a fight. By the time they grasped what was happening, it was too late.
Similarly people of the east (and many in the west) are baffled about monopoly (ownership) of ideas (patents). How can one stake a claim on an idea or a process or software? Software is just some invisible ordering of bytes on a hard drive. Large mature corporations are encouraging their mature governments to create IP laws that apply to ideas and products of the mind as property laws once started to apply to land and other physical property. They are then urging their governments to cajole, prod and push immature nations to adopt their versions of law. They are holding current trade and economic carrots over the heads of these immature nations. The immature nations then adopt these laws falling for the argument that the local companies will benefit as much as mature western companies from the IP laws. As soon as the laws are passed the mature companies will gobble up IP territory leaving the local companies in dust.
What can we do?
This is much to ask, but corporate and political leadership and people of immature countries have to wake up to this new kind of imperialism. Unfortunately, they have to mature faster. They cannot give up their rights for a pittance. IP laws must be examined and their legitimacy challenged. The often used argument that it promotes economic development must be re-examined. Perhaps certain things should not be allowed to be patented. Perhaps patents should not apply to public domain software (like open source). After all open source software defies the argument that without patents protection, people will not create things. i.e what patent protection did open source software need? Did it not come to exist?
Since fighting the system is hard and long work, fighting within the system must be encouraged. The immature economies should start to stake claim in the IP landscape at a higher pace. They must patent ideas locally and abroad. Government funded initiatives to fund IP defense should be considered. Since many of these economies spend billions on a physical military, perhaps a small percentage of this can be spared to create an IP defense.
What can you do?
Spread the idea. Talk to your friends, and their friends. Educate politicians. Come up with better arguments than mine. Write more. Express you intolerance of injustice in words and deeds. They are powerful.
Think about things
Reexamine carefully the benefit to society of idea monopoly. Reexamine the terms that a society gets for leasing monopoly of an idea (patents) to a company or individual. Should it be shorter? Should there be exemptions for public domain products? Should certain IP territories not be open for this kind of monopoly (like National Parks)? Should certain societies be allowed to mature their intellectual framework so that they don't start from a huge disadvantage? How can we measure the maturity level of a society to see if it can handle the armies of IP?
Thanks for listening.
P.S.
Is all IP bad?
No. IP is essential. There is some merit to the argument that only if we are allowed to own a monopoly to an invention will we risk our time (and capital) to work on it. We must reestablish this balance so that the benefit to the world community and the idea originator is equitable. We must also come to terms with the fact that many people are capable coming up with the same idea when confronted with a problem. Sometimes even when the problem is not the same the great idea is the same. ex. Newton and Leibniz. As the population of the world increases this becomes more and more likely. The cost of disseminating these ideas have dropped to almost zero. So the value derived by society for providing this monopoly to an individual company has diminished a great deal. Yet we keep increasing the value that the IP originator derives from the idea.
No comments:
Post a Comment