On IPR Abolition 13: Protecting Bright Ideas from Mediocre Ones

Below is my article today in the online magazine,  http://www.thelobbyist.biz/perspectives/less-gorvernment/1282-ipr-exclusivity-and-innovation.
The photos are not part of the original article though, I just added them here.
---------

IPR, Exclusivity and Innovation

There are two camps that oppose intellectual property rights (IPR) like patent, trademark and copyright and hence, they advocate the abolition of IPR. These are the socialists and the libertarian anarchists.

Socialists advocate the social and collective ownership of the means of production, both physical and non-physical or intellectual. Thus, the socialists are consistent in their philosophy of abolition of private property.

The libertarian anarchists support protection of private property rights for physical properties (house, car, cellphone, etc.) but not intellectual property for two reasons: (a) ideas are not scarce, one can use an idea without excluding other people from using it too, unlike a physical good like a cellphone, and (b) more power is given to the state to enforce IPR.

I consider myself a libertarian, someone believing in the primacy of individual liberty over collective or national liberty and forced equality. But unlike the anarchists, I consider myself a miniarchist (believes in small or minimal government). I have debated with some socialists in the past and it is relatively easy to demolish their arguments of abolishing private property.

My debate with the lib anarchists on IPR is long-running, and I was earlier surprised that they are the more staunch and more articulate IPR abolitionists than the socialists. Here are my quick answers to their two concerns.

Not all Ideas are the same. Not all people, not all dogs, not all cars, are the same. Mediocre if not stupid ideas are not scarce, they are everywhere; but bright ideas are. Mediocre ideas do not need protection because there is abundant supply in the planet, almost anyone can produce them. Bright ideas, like a good song composition, a good and attractive business logo, a revolutionary disease-killer medicine, need protection to distinguish them from mediocre ideas.

Enforcement of private property rights need not come from the government. Banks, shops, malls, residential villages, have their own private security agencies that enforce their rules against stealing and other criminal acts. They do not need the state police or barangay tanod to do that. Private enforcement of private property right is possible and is happening, including private enforcement of IPR via industry associations. A federation of artists, singers and composers can hire private security forces to swoop down on shops that sell pirated songs and movies. A federation of pharmaceutical companies can hire private security groups to locate and confiscate counterfeit and fake drugs from certain pharmacies. So the paranoid opposition to IPR simply because the state will enforce it holds no water.

On spoofs of known brands like Jollibee, Mcdo, Starbucks, Coke, Chowking, etc., I don’t think there is anything wrong with that. People poke and make fun of known politicians, sports and showbiz superstars, known business leaders. It is part of human nature to be happy and have fun somewhere sometime.

While it is easy to spoof and copy, it is hard to develop a brand that will be liked by so many people for so many years. If trademark is abolished, one can put up a food shop with lousy or expired food and use a Mcdo or Jolibee wrapper and make lots of money from it because many people will buy. When some customers get food poisoning, who do they sue and be made accountable -- the real Mcdo, the trademark theft, or the IPR abolitionists?

If there were no copyright in songs, perhaps Eraserheads, Parokya ni Edgar, Bamboo or Kamikaze would become famous and rich by simply singing "Hey Jude" or “Heaven” or “Sultans of Swing” in the same tune, just Filipino translation. But because of exclusivity and copyright, these Filipino rock bands invented their own songs, totally different from what the Beatles, Bryan Adams, U2, Dire Straits, etc sang. And these Filipino bands got rich and famous with their original songs.

On medicine invention, if 10 innovator pharmaceutical companies have successfully invented a new drug each against breast cancer, then that's 10 new monopoly drugs competing in the market based on efficacy and price. What's wrong with this? There is no single pharma company that has the monopoly on the new anti-breast cancer drugs, there are 10 of them now. Besides, there were many other pharma companies that have invented a drug for the same disease but their drug patents have already expired. That expands the number of competing drugs from different competing manufacturers for one disease alone.

One friend complained why famous NBA star Jeremy Lin has filed a trademark for “Linsanity” when he did not even invent that word. He followed up, "What if someone filed a trademark on the word ‘the’ or ‘do’ just because they were named THEoDOre or something?"


I think this paranoia is similar to the fear of dance steps or clowning style as patentable, formula in differential calculus as patentable, a chemistry formula as patentable. They are not, there was no “inventive step” involved, these are just products of paranoia and misconceptions on IPR.

I think JLin simply wants the "linsanity" trademarked for him because he and his company plan to roll out various sporting goods and services bearing the trademark soon. If so, then it’s a good business decision because “linsanity” is associated with him and no one else, and only he can endorse it. I also think he won't mind the term being used by anyone in the planet so long as they do not use the trademark and its logo, his face, in huge commercial quantity.

Copyright, patent, trademark, IPR and exclusivity, will force people to become innovative and creative. The copycaters, the lazy and non-innovative who only want to copy or steal someone else's composition and invention and do no original song or logo or medicine but still want to get rich and famous will not be happy with IPR. Why invent the Figaro brand when they can just steal Starbucks or UCC or other famous coffee brands which have been trusted by millions worldwide? Why compose "Harana" or "Ligaya" or “Tatsulok” when they can just sing and record "Hey Jude" or "With or Without You" and do concerts as if they also composed them? Why spend xx million $ inventing a costly but life saving drug when they can just make counterfeit copies or steal the formula and say "We also invented it" then sell it? Why be innovative if people can just copy or steal?

Exclusivity via IPR almost always force people and enterprises to produce their own business trademark, their own copyright and patent for their inventions and composition. People are forced to become creative and innovative in producing their own trademark, working hard to make their mark or brand be known nationwide, if not worldwide.
------

See also:
On IPR Abolition 5: Various Comments to Ownership of Ideas, May 15, 2011
On IPR Abolition 6: Blog Ownership and Drug Molecules, May 16, 2011
On IPR Abolition 7: Ideas Cannot be Owned?, May 18, 2011
On IPR Abolition 8: Data Exclusivity in the Proposed EU-Philippines FTA, June 06, 2011
On IPR Abolition 9: Seed Patent and Explosion of Seed Varieties, June 14, 2011
On IPR Abolition 10: Debate with Mises Blog IPR Abolitionists, June 14, 2011
On IPR Abolition 11: Trademark and Brands, September 05, 2011
On IPR Abolition 12: Patent, Mini-Monopolies and Trademark, September 20, 2011

On IPR Abolition 12: Patent, Mini-Monopolies and Trademark

Businessmen and companies themselves want trademark and IPR protection. Apple, Microsoft, Google, Yahoo, Facebook, Youtube, Nokia, Samsung, Toshiba, etc., they want their own unique corporate brand and identity. So when the IP Code or law of the US, UK, Japan, Phils., etc. was enacted, all these companies supported it. I am not aware of any big companies moving earth and mountains to abolish IPR.

For better appreciation of this thread, check also On IPR Abolition 11: Trademark and Brands, September 05, 2011.

There was a case of a local burger shop named “Mang Donalds” with logo somehow similar to MacDonald. The latter did not like this, so it sued the former over trademark issue, the former later closed shop, resurfaced as another food shop with a more unique name and encountered no legal issues. This shows how McDo can be so protective of its name and trademark.

With this precedent, I don’t think there will be another burger company that will be named Jollybees or Joylibee or Jojolibee and have logo similar to Jollibee’s. The latter will most likely hail them to court. The latter will say, "You lazy and opportunist businessmen, Be creative, find a business name really unique and not borrowing rhymes from our name". Which should validate that IPR abolition is for the lazy and non-innovative guys.

There are additional points raised by the anti-IPR camp:
‎

1. The people in generic companies don't even know a paradigm exists apart from IP, like those articulated by Stephan Kinsella, et al… IP is anti-physical property.

2. Period of patent is arbitrary.

3. Loss of earnings is not a property violation.

#1 looks too presumptuous. The owners, lawyers, PR guys of those generic companies are ignorant of the anti-IPR philosophy and campaign? First time I've heard that. I have talked to some officials of the PCPI, the federation of local pharma companies here, I asked them if they ever entertained or wished the possibility of drug patent abolition, of no-IPR world, they said NO. They know the huge costs of inventing new drug molecules. They don't want to enter that high risk, high cost business. They are happy waiting for the patent of the innovators to expire, then they manufacture their own brands and make money. Both innovators and generics companies are happy with this arrangement, they only squabble from time to time on the extension or the granting of another patent to what they think was a non-inventive process. The debate is more on legality, not on philosophy of IPR.

A molecule is a physical, tangible property. It is intangible with the naked eye, but tangible under a microscope. The “non-physical property” label on a molecule is a misnomer in the first place.

A logo and trademark may be a product of the mind but it also attains physical presence. Even a no-read no-write person can distinguish a McDo or Jollibee logo from the logo of other companies.

On #2, I agree that the 20 years patent on a drug molecule, the 50 years copyright on a song composition, may have been arbitrary. Any number of years can be labeled as arbitrary, but that is no reason to call for the abolition of the patent or copyright system.

If a drug patent is longer than 20 years, say 39 or 53 years, I bet that many of the current big generic companies around the world, like Unilab – the biggest pharma company in the Philippines with about 24 percent of total pharma market share, also ASEAN'S 2nd or 3rd biggest pharma company -- will also become an innovator company.

On #3, I agree too. A company which hired an idiot CEO who wasted the money for his perks, will soon be losing money if not go bankrupt. And IPR has nothing to do with it.

During the online debate, I asked the anti-IPR guys several questions:


a. Any big and successful company which has no trademark? Say a big "motor company", a big "IT company"?

b. An IPR is a mini-monopoly. Starbucks, Figaro, UCC, McCafe, Seattles Best, etc have their individual trademark and hence, individual monopoly. Who now has monopoly for the entire coffee shop industry?

c. If Jollibee will sue a hypothetical Joyllibee burger company, if Figaro will sue a hypothetical Figaru coffee company, if Itallianis will sue a hypothetical Ittaliano’s restaurant, etc., will the anti-IPR camp also be against those companies who sued?

d. Who is the bigger enemy, the BIG state or the many famous and successful private companies who just want all their competitors to have their own unique trademark and company names, and not copy-catting from their corporate name, trademark and logo?

The anti-IPR camp followed up with another round of arguments.

4. These trademark and patent holders are beneficiaries of the patent system. They are not going to move for its abolition.

5. It's like saying Meralco is a mini-monopoly because it only monopolizes electricity distribution.

6. Those private companies using the state to enforce their supposed IP, these companies are cronyistic to the degree that they use the state.

7. Generic companies not knowing the anti-IP paradigm, this is sure. It's not simply a matter of you asking if they're against abolishing IP altogether and their saying "No." It's about their being aware of the arguments for abolition.

On #4. the IPR system has contributed to dynamic capitalism. We consumers benefit from more choices from more players -- should we go for Figaro or Starbucks or UCC or Gloria Jeans or Seattle’s Best or Dunkin Donuts coffee? Each trademarked company wants to do better, to keep improving to please consumers so they will come back. Why abolish the IP system that contributed to a more dynamic capitalism?

On #5. Meralco monopoly is bad because it is an industry monopoly, it is not just a mini-monooly under the electricity distribution sector. Are there other electricity distributors in Metro Manila and surrounding provinces? No. Meralco has monopolized the entire power distribution business in said franchise area. In the case of the coffee shop or burger business, there ARE many other suppliers and players. Each is a mini-monopoly in a deregulated and non-monopolized industry.

On #6, it’s the first time again I’ve heard that those famous coffee shop brands, those successful burger and fastfood restaurants, those successful innovator and generic pharma companies, all those big and trademarked names in the IT industry like Apple, Sony, Toshiba, HP, etc., now are ALL cronies. This is weird.

On #7, it is weird to say that leaders of the local generic industry are not aware of the anti-IP paradigm as lionized by urban legend propagator Stephan Kinsella, et al. I have heard of the IP lawyer of Unilab, an expert on TRIPS and other IPR issues. I heard him argue against patent ever-greening, the Bolar principle, etc. but I haven’t heard him saying that IPR like patent should be abolished. Or did I miss it big time?

The IP Code (IPC) of the Philippines and other countries recognize something that is an "inventive step" over the previous process or molecule as patentable.

Now here is one mistake or myth that many anti-IP folks sometimes or often mention: that mathematical formulas, chemical and physical formulas, dance steps, etc. are patentable. WRONG. These are NON-patentable. I've heard a number of anti-IP guys arguing against IPR because they thought that such things are patentable. Equations in algebra, trigonometry, Integral and differential calculus, the famous E=MC2, hydrogen, oxygen, H20, CH4, breakdance, new tango steps, etc. are NON-patentable.

The inventive step whether it is 1% or 0.001% over the originally-patented process or molecule is a matter of details. But that’s treading on many grey areas that are easily questionable. So IP lawyers come in, and a referee called the IP Office (IPO) decides which patent applications are valid and which ones are frivolous and invalid. The point is that changes over the original is encouraged, recognized, respected and protected. I think that's how the IPhone evolves, marginal improvement over the previous ones. IPone1 patented, IPhone2 another patent, IPhone3 another patent, and so on.

If one is a serious and really innovative entrepreneur, he should avoid those inventions which have grey areas. Do not go for a drug molecule which is just 1% or 0.1% different over the currently patented drug molecule. Go for 50% to 100% different drug molecule. If a new and famous patented drug against breast cancer is using raw materials 100% from mangos, then go for a drug against breast cancer where the raw materials are at most 50% mangos, 10% avocado, 25% orange, etc. to produce another drug to kill a similar disease that the currently patented famous drug aims to do. Or get raw materials and active ingredients from rabbit intestines or cow liver, etc. The raw materials for active ingredients can be endless for the really innovative inventors. For copy-catters and somehow lazy inventors, they want to hop on what is currently popular and effective and introduce minute different and claim they made big inventive step.

There is a facebuko.com, trying to make fun of facebook itself. I say that it’s cute, its funny. So I don’t think that facebook will ever be worried of their existence and hail the creator of that site to court. The site does not attract subscribers, it's a non competitor. It's just a spoof, and normally, big companies which are getting spoofed usually get entertained rather than get irritated.

Another round of counter-points by the anti-IPR camp:

8. It is careless to say that IP abolition is for lazy businessmen. That's an ad hominem.

9. By bringing in trademarks, you make someone legally liable for something in which they will fail anyway due to competition.

10. My own Meralco mini-monopoly comment was intended to express the absurdity of euphemizing a monoply by calling it 'mini.'”

11. Private companies are cronyistic TO THE DEGREE that they use the state to monopolize certain aspects of their business.

12. What IP does is because you patented the IDEA of a molecule, you own not just that one molecule in your possession, but even those molecules on the other side of the planet.

13. Tthe patent system is supported by businesses out of ignorance and because they are beneficiaries.

On #8. It is my perception that IP abolition attracts the lazy and non-innovative businessmen. Like the guys perhaps who will put up a Jollybee burger or Starbacks coffee or Unolab pharma or Philtranko bus line. There are thousands of possible names for their company but they lazily choose one that rhymes very closely and trademarked very closely, with the popular brands. That's why I call it plain laziness, lack of productive creativity, only the creativity to copy-cat.

On # 9. Trademark violation applies to the non-innovative businessmen. There is an Aling Pilang Cafe. Would new coffee shops aspire to name their company as Aling Pelang or Manang Pilang Cafe? Not a bit. The former is a never-heard, unglamorous to hear company name. On the other hand, lazy and deceitful businessmen are likely to try their new company names Starbacks, Storebucks, Straybucks coffee, etc. Why? Envy, desire to attract many customers at once despite having zero track record as a good coffee company. Laziness to become really unique and creative.

On #10, Wrong. If we do not differentiate what is a mini-monopoly in trademark only vs an industry monopoly, then one can also say that ‘UCC monopolizes the coffee shop industry’, or Figaro monopolizes the coffee shop industry, which is clearly wrong. But if one will say ‘Meralco monopolizes the electricity distribution industry in Metro Manila and neighboring provinces’, that is clearly correct.

On #11. Then ALL companies are government cronies because to some degree, whether 1% or 100% degree, they use the state to monopolize certain aspects of their business, say their location, their parking lot, their oh-cute company name, their oh-pretty actress model, their oh-macho athlete model, their unique and eye-catching logo, etc. Could it be true that all companies are government cronies? Tough luck.

On #12, This is really weird, that if one owns and patented one drug molecule, then he also owns ALL other molecules around the planet. Where could this urban legend come from? I wrote earlier about different molecules SIMULTANEOUSLY invented, all patented, all not in drugstores yet. Molecules just to kill prostate cancer with weird names like abiraterone acetate, azazitidine, befetinib, cixutumumab, docetaxel liposomal, enzastaurin, intetumumab, ixabepilone, lenalidomide, nimotuzumab,... There are also acronym-numbers like MLN 8237, ISIS EIF4ERx, GDC 0449,... So I invent only one molecule, the other guys invent their own molecules, everyone happy. Now whether the molecule that we invented will become blockbuster and profitable or not, is another story.

On #13, Again wrong. ALL generic manufacturers are non-ignorant, and non-beneficiaries of the patented drugs. And yet they all support the patent system for drugs. Why? Because they spent not a single centavo in the very costly R&D, multiple clinical trials (with some animals first, then with a few sick people, then with many sick people, the non-sick, etc.), taking up from 8 to 13 years out of the 20 years total patent life, just to develop one drug. But once the patent expires, all the generic manufacturers can jump in and develop their own brand of drugs from the same molecule that the innovator companies have developed.

I repeat my observation that the libertarian anti-IPR cause is really infantile. They would rather point their guns and angst on private individuals, private companies, which only want protection of their new invention, their carefully-protected business name and brand, than point their guns on the BIG and monster state that taxes big, intervenes big, regulates and restricts big.

More private ownership, more capitalism.
More social ownership, more socialism.

On IPR Abolition 8: Data Exclusivity in the Proposed EU-Philippines FTA

ate last month, there was a roundtable discussion between NGO leaders of the Coalition for Health Advocacy and Transparency (CHAT) where MG Thinkers is a member, and some convenors of the EU-ASEAN FTA (Free Trade Agreement) Network of NGOs. The main presenters were from the Focus on the Global South and the Fair Trade Alliance (FairTrade).

The FTA network NGO leaders are watching the proposals by the EU for the possible EU-Philippines FTA, on the aspect of IPR and medicines. They said that the EU wants a stronger data exclusivity agreement with the Philippines, like the patent period to start not from the discovery of the drug molecule, but from final approval and marketing of the drugs. I have not seen the draft agreement yet, it will be tackled in another round table discussion next month.

There was a proposal from a leader of Sanlakas, a militant labor organization advocating for socialism, that civil society groups should air for the "highest" form of protest like the outright abolition of the IPR system. Many NGO leaders in CHAT played a big role (me not included) in the passage of the Cheaper Medicines Law or RA 9502. That law simply amended the Intellectual Property Code (IPC) of the Philippines, not abolished the IPR system like drug patents. RA 9502 was a hard-fought law for many CHAT-affiliated NGO leaders and it is not possible, not wise, to just throw it away in favor of advocating for the abolition of IPR.

Notice that not a single local pharmaceutical company, from the biggest (like Unilab) to the smallest, advocates the abolition of IPR. I think all local and generic pharma companies recognize the value of new drug invention by the multinational innovator companies as a very expensive, high-risk, and very bureaucratic (dealing with Food and Drug Administrations (FDAs) endeavor. Thus, they respect the patent given to newly-discovered drug molecules by the innovator companies. They only wish that certain TRIPS flexibilities on IPR like the "early working" principle, compulsory licensing (CL), parallel importation and related measures be given to governments of poorer countries to allow such governments and local pharmas to deal with certain health emergencies. That is why RA 9502 was enacted into a law.

During lunch, I discussed with the Sanlakas leader my observation that there are two groups of people who support the abolition of all forms of IPR. The socialists or the lovers of BIG government, and the libertarian anarchists, or the lovers of ZERO government. Libertarians are supposed to be free marketers, to support private property rights. The main difference between capitalism and socialism is that the former supports and respects private property ownership of the means of production (thus, advocacy for private property rights) while the latter disrespects such rights and supports state and social ownership of the means of production.

But certain libertarian anarchists support only private property rights for physical and tangible properties (land, house, car, computer, cell phone, etc.) but not intangible or intellectual output. They consider ideas as "non-ownable" and private property rights cannot be conferred on ideas.

I have debated with some socialists and some libertarian anarchists on IPR -- see my earlier discussions on IPR since late 2007 in this blog, most recently Parts 1 to 7 of this subject. And I discovered that some libertarian anarchists are the most rabid, the most vocal, and the most passionate in the campaign for the abolition of all IPR compared to the socialists. It was a big surprise to me.

Well, I've been a Marxist-socialist (but never a Maoist) for a few years in the 80s, and very briefly was a fan of Michael Bakunin and other anarchists. So somehow I know how the minds of the socialists and anarchists work. Maybe, I could be wrong.

When the socialists call for the abolition of IPR as "non-property rights", it is understandable because they are consistent with the abolition of private property rights of the means of production (land, machines, factories, offices, etc.). Drug molecules, song compositions, books and scientific papers, etc. are considered part of the means of production. So for the socialists, whether physical property or intellectual property, both cannot be granted as private property; both should be state and communal property.

The libertarian anarchists' arguments for IPR abolition are four: (1) Ideas are non-scarce and there is no conflict among people when they use such non-scarce commodity, (2) ideas cannot be owned in the first place, (3) IPRs like patent, copyright and trademark, create monopolies, and (4) all IPRs are state-granted and issued.

My quick answer to all points above are:
(1) Bright ideas are scarce, idiotic ideas are not, they abound, and one proof is that governments around the world keep expanding.
(2) Ideas are ownable, bright minds who pursue molecular biology from BS up to PhD and post-doctoral degrees for instance, will pursue a full time career of producing nothing but ideas, they should be entitled to their own inventions.
(3) True that IPRs create monopolies, but not industry monopolies, rather, brand or product monopolies, better termed as "mini-monopolies." One million rock songs, one million song copyrights, no problem; there is no single "rock song copyright."
And (4) it is possible that IPRs can be issued by industry associations in the future. A system of reward and punishment can be implemented for respect or disrespect of IPR at the private, industry level.

It is funny how some anarchists would label other free marketers who support the IPR system, those who disagree with their brand of libertarianism, as "advocating violence". For this dogmatic type of libertarians, there is only one truth of "peace" in this planet: THEIR version. I am not comfortable working with the dogmatists.

Meanwhile, I just read from the Property Rights Alliance that the Australian government is planning legislation that will mandate the removal of trademarks and logos of tobacco manufacturers in cigarette packages. I have posted in Tobacco taxation, Part 2 that I have little or zero sympathy with smoking, but I recognize that people own their bodies. If they want to smoke and smoke, drink and drink, even if they know that it is not good for their health, so be it.

But I am not in favor of such proposed legislation in Australia -- and soon, it will be introduced here in the Philippines and other countries. A company's trademark and logo represents its identity. Remove the trademark and you remove its identity compared to other producers and manufacturers. The public then will have a hard time, or will not be able, to distinguish between the real and fake manufacturers. In addition, such proposal will also violate existing IPR laws, unless they will also amend their respective Intellectual Property Code (IPC) or similar laws.

On IPR Abolition 6: Blog Ownership and Drug Molecules

Below is a continuation of my debate with some libertarians who are anti-IP. Specifically with Say Peng, a friend in Singapore. Posting his comments with his permission.

Say: Nonoy, do you agree that ownership of property can only be physical ownership; if you do, then since ideas are intangible, how does one own them?

Nonoy: Say, I already said above, ideas are ownable. I own a blog, it's intangible. Would anyone say now that I cannot own it? If they persist so, then who owns httpfunwithgovernment.blogspot.com? Government? UN? the socialists? Follow up question: do the anti-IP libertarians consider molecules as intangible? Scientists and inventors create and invent new molecules or compound of molecules.

Say: I believe Blogger, which is currently owned by Google, "owns" your blog. A blog is a type of service, which explains its intangibility; it is a service which result from the workings of physical computers and whatnot. So the people who owns the computers sustaining the blog are its original "owners". And because you are using a service, you do not own anything.

Molecules are tangible, obviously. Scientists who create new molecules own the molecules that they have in their possession, but not the concept or idea of the molecule; which means, for example, if I invent a new chemical compound called Sodium Trioxide, I do not own the chemical formula NaO3, but only own the NaO3 molecules that I have in my possession.

Nonoy: Google owns blogger, true. Google owns and controls my blog, adds or removes content, allows or disallows reader comments, false. It is that private ownership of something that allows people to be creative. The Philippine govt, the Philippine "collective", owns the portal, www.gov.ph. What do I care about it? That portal has little or no creativity, only press releases of the national bureaucracy.

Now to molecules, it's good that you admit that molecules are tangibles. But such molecular inventions are governed by IPR, that's why new drug molecules are patented. The pharma or biotech companies have their own trademarks, another form of IPR. So what's wrong with granting patents to a new drug molecule that was invented by scientists? What's wrong with granting a trademark to companies? Why insist on the abolition of IPR?

Say: ‎"Google owns and controls my blog, adds or removes content, allows or disallows reader comments, false." This is only false if you've entered into a contract with Google forbidding so. Otherwise, Google holds exclusive control over the blog.

It's not the drug molecules that are patented; it's the chemical formulas of the drug molecules that are patented. What's wrong with it is that nonviolent people who use the same chemical formulas to create the drug molecules with their own chemical and technological tools are met with by violent intervention from the State. Just imagine: If the person who invented sulphuric acid had patented its chemical formula, that would mean that anyone (from chemistry students in schools to industrial scientists in chemical companies) who created the chemical, using their own stuff, would be penalized. That's what wrong.

Nonoy: Google, fb, yahoo, twitter, etc. have their own terms and conditions. Once you click "I accept", that is the contract between you and them. By having its own IPR, by having its own trademark, google, fb, youtube, yahoo, etc., they become very innovative, very efficient, and we are reaping their efficiency, like these free fb accounts. Isn't it wonderful how the IP system that protects them causes them to become efficient? About drug molecules, wrong. Check my earlier paper, "IPR and medicines part 8", I enumerated there some molecules that are patented -- abiraterone acetate, azazitidine, befetinib, cixutumumab, docetaxel liposomal, enzastaurin, intetumumab, ixabepilone, lenalidomide, nimotuzumab... these are not chemical formulas, they are drug molecules. So to treat just one disease, prostate cancer, I mentioned there 101 new molecules under various R&D stages. Anyone and everyone can create his/her own drug molecule, no copying needed, so long as they have the scientific capability and financial resources. What's worng with that system? Why insist on the abolition of the IP system that encourages more and more people and companies to become inventive and innovative?

Say: I never read the terms and conditions set by Google and Hotmail. I honestly doubt anyone reads them. But yeah, it's a contractual agreement.

Drug molecules are chemical molecules, and how would one patent them if not by patenting their chemical formulas? There is nothing wrong with people creating their own drug molecules, but what if I want to produce the drug molecule that you invented instead? In order to do so, I have to use the drug's chemical formula, which is an intangible concept which you therefore cannot own, and my own chemicals and machinery. I have taken nothing from you by force; yet you would, by enforcing IPR, set the State's violent mechanism upon me and prevent me from doing what I want, nonviolently, with my own properties. How does this system protect my propertarian liberty?

Nonoy: To treat breast cancer, there are probably more than 2,000 different drug molecules that have been invented -- off patent and have hundreds of various generic brands already; patented and marketed, and patented but still not marketed, in various R&D stages. If you insist to use the drug molecule that I invented, no problem, just buy my drug, period. If you think my price is very high or the effectiveness of my drug is suspect, then just go to another manufacturer and buy his drug using a different molecule. But if you insist to really use my drug molecule, the raw materials I got, say, from innards of cows or pigs, then just innovate a little, get raw materials from innards of chicken or ducks or tilapia, and produce your own molecule. The IP system really encourages endless, limitless innovation and imagination. Why insist on abolishing the system?

Say: ‎"If you insist to use the drug molecule that I invented, no problem, just buy my drug, period."

It's not about buying your drug, which means buying ownership of a physical item; but about "buying" the chemical formula of the drug which is non-physical and therefore cannot be owned, sold, and bought.

I don't really know if the IP system promotes innovation; there are disputations regarding it and I haven't made up my mind. But I am against it currently because of its immorality; it is in conflict with tangible property rights.

Nonoy: "I don't really know if the IP system promotes innovation." -- I already explained it above: millions of patented seeds, with tens of thousands of rice seeds alone; dozens and dozens of cartoon characters aside from Mickey Mouse; thousands of drug molecules invented on each of major diseases (prostate C, breast C, colon C, hypertension, cardiovascular, stroke, etc.). Millions of songs copyrighted, millions of books copyrighted. And see the important trademarks -- google, fb, youtube, yahoo, live, twitter, wordpress, baidu, naver, etc. -- and all the efficiencies and free social networking and search engines they give us for free.

To be continued...
------

On another note, another friend in facebook, Sebastian, posted in my wall the book, Bourbon for Breakfast: Living Outside the Statist Quo, by Jeffrey Tucker of the Mises Institute, Alabama, USA. Sebastian wrote a short note, Some more thoughts for you to disagree with over IP protection ;)

I thanked him for that link. I told him that I already mentioned this book in Part 4 of this discussion series. I noted how the arguments of the socialists and some libertarians on IP are so similar.

Sebastian replied, “I don’t think socialists would describe IP laws as monopolies granted by and in connivance with the state, would they? As I understand it, this is not an attack on property itself, there is a big philosophical difference between physical and intellectual property. You should also discuss this book on your blog: http://www.scribd.com/doc/51833371/Against-Intellectual-Monopoly.

I replied, “Yes, socialists consider IPR like patents as monopolies granted by the state. See how the left formulate their campaign against drug patents, "Patients over patents".
I saw that book earlier, especially the part on "simultaneous invention". The authors are wrong, there is NO conflict in simultaneous invention, as I discussed here, IPR and medicines, part 8. 101 different new drug molecules being developed just to treat prostate cancer, excluding old drugs that are still patented or off-patent already. There are endless possibilities and opportunities to inventors and innovators, thanks to the IPR system.”

On IPR Abolition 5: Various Comments to Ownership of Ideas

After posting Part 4 of this discussion series on IP in my facebook wall, it attracted a number of comments. For brevity purposes, I will enumerate the comments and questions from 6 friends – Froilan, Say, Siegfried, Marvin, Dominic and Donaldson. Here they are:

1. Here's a libertarian's comment on this group: "Lets put it this way... I bought a book from a great author and I love to share it with my friends and relatives for free, re-print it using my paper, ink, printing machine, my valuable time and produces 100 the same copy with the full name of the author and title. And the author is nowhere to be found or maybe he's already dead. Still I have no right?" SO EVIL!
http://www.facebook.com/home.php?sk=group_196382230406190

In a society that respects property rights, which include IP rights, no one may infringe upon anyone's right (copyright, patent right, etc.) however noble the intention. But in an anarchic society, reprinting copies of an author's book even without the latter's consent either for good intention or for profit is deemed perfectly "moral" [and legal].

2. What does one actually own under an intellectual property rights regime? I believe ownership of property can only be physical ownership. Under a property rights regime, I own physical stuff like chairs and houses. Under an intellectual property rights regime, what do I physically own?

3. As to IPRs, I do feel they are materially different, and intrinsically weaker, than property rights in land and goods, simply because land and goods can only be used by one person at a time, while intellectual goods can be used by multitudes simultaneously. IPRs sole justification is thus a claim on the fruits of one's labour, which is important but has to be balanced by the need to avoid socially harmful extended monopolies that pre-empt potentially beneficial markets. There is considerable scope for misuse when IPRs are claimed without an intention to use the invention, just to pre-empt competitors, or when farmers are not allowed to produce their own seedgrain from patented seeds, to cite two notorious examples. And the extension of Disney's IPR to Mickey Mouse by the US Congress shows how open this all is to political manipulation.

4. I agree with your blog's general direction from an evolutionary economics (neo-Schumpeterian) point of view.

In the present world, much 'intellectual property' is the result of conscious effort and work not just of individuals but also of institutions like R&D laboratories or research universities - new knowledge comes more and more from the work of teams. Some form of IP protection provides incentives for such innovation work to happen. Societies that provide the fairest protection, like the U.S., Switzerland, EU, become the most innovative and therefore best able to deliver rising living standards to its citizens. Two examples:

a) For drugs and medicine, the safety and efficacy standards of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to protect the populace from quacks and snake oil salesmen require a fixed stress test period of seven years that is quite expensive and a big barrier (and still gives incomplete protection for cases like mutative risks from toxic compounds - mercury- or lead-based - that accumulate in the parent but affect the offspring, i.e. thalidomide or nicotine/saccharine that are consumed in minute quantities and take up to thirty years to become high risk of local cancer to the consumer).

If one agrees that the FDA provides value to society, in concept, then drug developers ought to be given enough time to obtain returns on their directed effort to develop drugs.

Even this reasonable period may still not be enough without government spending on the science research (not just application development) that requires finding new and basic knowledge that are not appropriable to discoverers, not in the best interest of society to provide temporary monopoly cover, or too expensive for even large corporations or countries to invest. Four examples - (a) Manhattan project for national defense in the development of the atomic bomb, (b) DARPA project for alternative distributed command-and-control channel in case of nuclear that was eventually released to the public domain in 1995 when risk from war with the Soviet Union to become the Internet/WWW, (c) CERN collider in Europe to discover the behavior of atomic particles for leading-edge Physics, and (d) mapping the human genome for future development on next level gene-based drugs.

b) Thus far, patents that provide temporary monopoly protection for about seventeen years (that in the case of drugs 7-10 years are already used in the approval process) and seem to be the fairest and at the same time most advantageous to society in providing incentives for innovation.

Obviously, there is some administration needed to do this in behalf of the total population and thus taxes to pay for such administration. As mentioned above, the U.S. patent system, on the whole, provided fair protection and created the richest and most innovative society.

With the recent crises, some budget proposals are made to gut the U.S. Patent Office under the general ideological rubric, without looking at the details, of creating small government.

Let us watch the reduction of U.S. dominance in having 19 out of 20 top universities in the world and the migration of research laboratories overseas now happening (as pull in) because of the search for talent but maybe accelerating in the future because of lack of IP protection from patents (as push out).

5. So I'm going to warn a friend who is passionately creating and innovating a device that will surely help his father because of disability. He might get sued…. As Mr. Michaels concluded that "The recognition of IPR is consistent with the pursuit of democracy, property rights and economic development... Now is the time to strengthen IP laws to drive technological development in the digital age and to provide certainty for investment in the future."

Are we asking here for more Government intervention? I think the drive for technological development and advancement will come from the market, the competition, not from more regulations.

6. The intellectual property regime is full of grey areas.

Here are my response and rejoinder to the above six comments and questions.

On #1, I think that even if the author is alive, is around nearby, he won't mind that his book is being copied and distributed for free to more people. What he would object would be if his book is copied and sold for a good price or profit by some guys.

On #2, In the IP regime, one owns ideas, an invention, a composition, a molecule or compound of molecules. Ideas are ownable. For instance, one  million rock songs from 100,000 rock bands and singers worldwide, one million copyrights (on each of those songs), what's wrong with this? Invention of drug molecule to control if not kill breast cancer, such molecule is a product of hard work, huge investments, long R&D work, involving several dozen scientists. In a No-IP regime, anybody can also claim, "I also invented that useful drug molecule" even if they spent not a single $ for its discovery.

On #3, Patented seeds number in millions. Rice seeds in the IRRI seed bank alone, should be several tens or hundreds of thousands, each may be patented. The reason for the expansion of so many different seeds is biotechnology and agri- or bio-engineering. The seed patent system has encouraged thousands of seed scientists to invent new breeds, new varieties, with very specific properties. Say a rice with vitamin C, a rice harvestable in just 2 1/2 months, a drought-resistant rice that can survive with just few days of rain up to harvest. On Mickey's patent, thanks for it, other cartoon producers simply say, “So we cannot use Mickey for our tv program? We will just invent our own cartoon characters.” That is why Winnie the Pooh, Tigger and Pooh, Dora, Dibo, Pocoyo, Pororo, Angelina Ballerina, Chuggington, Little Einsteins, Barbie, and several dozen other cartoon characters were invented. All competing with each other, and little kids today know more cartoon characters than 2 or 3 decades ago. The IP mini-monopoly system created more and more products and services, more innovators, all competing with each other.

On #4, Amen to your points, Marvin.

On #5, Don't warn your friend, encourage him to pursue it. Each invention, especially health related, requires some form of "clinical trials". If he succeeds in his invention to help his father, he can show it as proof, he can go to IPO and register his invention for IP recognition, only if he wants it. Or he can share it with the rest of humanity, no problem on both actions. Re Michael Williams' concluding note, No, no need for "additional" government intervention. The interventions and regulations are already there. What he is referring to, is for governments not to bend to the anti-IP academics and socialists to relax if not abolish the IP system.

On #6, Yes, IP has lots of grey areas. But if we focus on "more private ownership, more capitalism; more social ownership, more socialism", I think we can reduce the grey areas and limit the debate to a few issues.

On intellectual property abolition, part 2

After writing On intellectual property abolition yesterday, it attracted 3 comments. See my reply to them in the comments section of the article.

I also posted yesterday that link in the comments section of Stephan Kinsela's article, The Four Historical Phases of IP Abolitionism. There were several other comments after I posted mine. I post 3 of them below:

(1) Edgaras, April 18, 2011

Who argues that nonsense? To argue, that people should be forced not to act with their property as they see fit just because some “scientist” had this precious idea first and would like that no one used it in his “way” – that is dictatorship. Owning ideas is owning other people. And this is argued by most of the IP proponents. Or at least, it’s a logical conclusion of their ideas.

(2) Stephan Kinsella, April 18, 2011

They aren’t forced to share it. If they want to keep it secret, fine. but if they decide to make it public–for example by selling it–then they cannot whine when others use the information.

(3) Edgaras April 19, 2011

Abolishing IP won’t prevent producers from producing. Reality debunks such inane claims by thousands of examples. I hope I don’t need it to mention… Take for example all the open source and creative commons music. Take for example free books by many authors who profit from donations. Jeez.

Below are my rejoinders to those comments.

On #1. "Owning ideas is owning other people." I find zero connection between the two. I say for instance, "I own this blog." Did I own other people, or did I control their lives? They too, can also start and own a blog of their own, it's fast and free, courtesy of blogger, wordpress and other sites.

On #2, by forcing the abolition of IP, proponents are forcing the sharing of ideas that some idea owners may not be happy to do without some compensation or even citation. Owners of idea -- a song composition, a picture or cartoon, a new drug molecule, a new tire molecule, etc. -- decide whether they want their ideas to be shared for free with the rest of humanity, not some ideologues or government bureaucrats. If idea owners want their intellectual output be used publicly in exchange for compensation, say a new drug or a new tire, then they should be respected. IP abolition proponents want total disrespect for ownership of ideas.

On #3, "Abolishing IP won’t prevent producers from producing." True. But keeping IP will also encourage actual and potential producers to produce more. Rock band A composed and produced 500+ songs, all copyrighted. Rock band B composed and produced 400+ songs, all copyrighted. Rock band C composed and produced 75 song, all copyrighted... Rock band Z produced and composed 200+ songs, and so on.

Currently, people are allowed to say, "I composed that song, I own it. But other people can also sing it, play it, knowing that it was me who originally composed and sang it." The IP abolitionists argue that ideas, like a song composition, cannot be owned. Thus, no one can say that "I composed that song, I own it." To me, that is unfair.

Meanwhile, below are portion of the long comments made by Paul, who is a friend and owns Colorful Rag blog. He wrote,

...I would maintain that ideas are not ownable. Hans Hermann-Hoppe points out that IP is not only illegitimate, but it is actually CONTRARY to physical, scarce property rights. When you claim ownership of an idea, what you are doing is actually claiming control over what other people do with their physical property. This means a person is unable to truly exercise their control over their computer when prohibited from downloading this or that. Or, one does not actually have control over certain owned physical materials meant to be used to create medicines, because of IPR restrictions...

I also mention in the book I gave you that the logical inconsistency of IP as property is quite apparent when an architect is commissioned to build a house. If we are to be consistent with the belief in IP, this would mean that the very house he is designed to make is his to control. Only by some logical wrangling does the actual owner retain title.

If I am a struggling rock artist and I hope to earn some stable income (if not become rich) someday by composing and singing more rock songs on more subjects, then I wish that some protection be given to me so that I can be compensated for my ideas, for my effort. The IP abolitionists say that I am not entitled to claim ownership of my own song compositions. Implying that every Tom-Dick-Harry can sing any or all of my songs, perform rock concerts or do big product endorsements on my songs, and not a bit of originality and authorship can be traced to me.

One implication of this proposal is to encourage plain copying and laziness in innovation. Why innovate and invent on some useful products like a new life-saving medicine or a new race track-hugging tire, which requires huge amount of money, research work, multiple clinical trials, and take many years to finish, when the inventors cannot even be allowed to claim ownership of their own inventions?

An architect who designed a house can only claim ownership of the design, the one on paper, not the house itself. But since the owner of the house already paid the architect, it is the house owner who will decide later whether he will follow all the designs made by the architect, or introduce new revisions, or throw away the design and commission another architect or other artists to do the job. Whatever the house owner will decide later, the architect can afford to be indifferent as his idea, the house design, was already compensated for.

I repeat, private property is private property. It is not communal or government property, whether physical property or intellectual property.