The unlawful imprisonment of my mind
Or how patents changed the way I look at capitalism today
I have always supported Capitalism. Just like most other people, freedom is among the most fundamental of rights I cherish and Capitalism appeared to protect it better than other economic models. Being an entrepreneur (of fairly limited consequence I must add), a system that supported and rewarded independent innovation seemed right. Maybe even perfect.
So when the Occupy Protest Movement was taking place at Zuccotti Park and all across the world in 2011, I was vociferously against their demands even though I didn’t belong to the privileged 1% they were fighting against. They were advocating changes in the world order, and I couldn’t see why anything needed to change.
I feel differently today. What changed my mind? Patents. Over the years, my dislike for Patents and Intellectual Property Rights has grown into full-blown hate. This has finally led me to ask the questions I should have asked a long time back.
But let’s begin with Patents.
The absurdity that an idea can be ‘owned’
For anyone who cares about innovation or even just freedom, the concept of ‘idea ownership’ is particularly disturbing. It is like a restriction on free thought, and almost entirely illogical.
First, one could question the notion that an idea can be ‘owned’.
My ideas are my own, crafted uniquely in the depths on my mind. How could someone else own them?
Second, even breakthrough inventions build on the vast body of knowledge we have acquired over thousands of years.
If someone is inventing upon the shared knowledge of all humanity, is it fair to grant exclusive usage rights for it?
This leads to large scale extortion. The majority of people infringe on patents unknowingly. It is only when they get sued that they come to know that somebody had an exclusive right to their independently conceived idea. Patent Trolls are having a field day. Take for instance, this company called IP-Nav. Although they don’t make any products themselves, they have sued more than 1,600 businesses for using their ‘ideas’. Overall, the cost of fighting these trolls has reached $29 billion, nearly 400% more than in 2005.
Screwing the poor people
While corporations have been filing away patents in developed countries, countries in Asia and Africa have had bigger problems to tackle like poverty and healthcare. There is absolutely no incentive for these countries to recognize Intellectual Property Rights. Yet they have been coerced into it through the World Trade Organization and TRIPS Agreement.
Corporations meanwhile have been very clear that nothing must stand between them and profits. Not even precious human lives. An interesting battle was the recent Novartis vs. The Union of India. The Supreme Court of India refused to allow patents for Gleevec, a drug used in fighting cancer. A decision that will save thousands of lives.
A butt-hurt Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America minced no words: The Indian government and the Indian courts have come down on the side that doesn’t recognize the value of innovation and the value of strong intellectual property, which we believe is essential.
I have two words for the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America. ‘Fuck off’
Patent laws are symptoms. Greed is the disease.
We wrote laws so that we could have a functioning society. People could own land and resources because these laws permitted them to. If not for these laws, the planet would belong to everyone. The laws are fine as long as it works for the society as a whole, but it doesn’t. A small set of people own grossly disproportionate amounts of our limited resources. If this wasn’t the original idea, why do we make laws to legitimize this?
It is obvious. Laws are made by the rich for the rich. Sometimes when they find that there isn’t much else left to own, they go overboard and think up things like ‘ownership of ideas’.
I am not against rewarding successful or talented people. I am not against a world with rich people. But is there a good reason to allow for the ‘billionaire class’ of people? At the very least, shouldn’t things get harder as they move up the ladder? It doesn’t when they make the rules.
Lawrence Lessig gave this wonderful talk at TED in February in which he discusses elections in an imaginary land called Lesterland. Lesterland has two elections; a general election in which the public can vote and another in which a smaller group of rich and powerful people called Lesters can vote. For a candidate to stand for the general election, he has to do exceptionally well in the Lester election.
Most democracies are actually Lesterlands, although they don’t openly admit it. The citizens can only vote for a set of candidates cherry picked by the Lesters to serve their interests.
Occupy and others, you were right. And I was wrong.
Many of us wrote off these protests as a gathering of creative people who did not fully appreciate the complexities of modern economic order.
I was wrong on many different levels. It was the protesters who were more sophisticated, knowledgeable and aware than I was. My mind was conditioned to have faith in the existing system without ever questioning it. I was refusing to see simple truths, like how far the foundation of Capitalism has been eroded by greed. I was part of the system these protests were trying to fix.
I see it now.
