Most of us have seen children growing up. Their first word, their first kiss, the first picture they draw and so on. Especially parents and elder siblings know better about how children learn from us. It is pretty simple, yet overlooked fact. They imitate! That is one of the most beautiful gifts mother nature has given us apart from the basic animal instincts. A child doesn't learn crying or smiling or sleeping or sucking milk by imitation. So does a kitten learns climbing walls or a fish learns to swim. These things come naturally. But the complex human wisdom and progress relies upon the knowledge passed down to the next generation through imitation. Without imitation, we will be just a bunch of apes hunting and stealing food, breeding and killing others or getting killed by others.
Some people confuse copying and imitating and end up saying imitation is wrong, at least in some areas. For example, a child doing exactly what its mother or brother is doing is considered perfectly normal and encouraged, while a student writing(copying by looking in to his paper) exactly what the person sitting next to him is morally evil. So, imitating is allowed and good in one area and morally evil and bad in another. Their argument goes like this. A person can use language, established tools like wheel, fire, knife etc without worrying about patents, but when it is something new, that should be patent protected and only the "owner" of the "idea" should be able to use it (at least for some period of time, may be in years or decades). But they conveniently forget that without all other "existing" ideas, the new idea couldn't be there in the first place!
This is where they get things completely wrong. Most of the people concerned about freedom of knowledge are not against copyrights or trade secrets or trademarks (there are some who oppose copyrights too, and it is out of scope here). We oppose patents alone. Let us see how the student copying from the person next to him is different from a child imitating to learn. First, it is not a process of learning which the student is imitating the other one doing. He is just copying the exact text of his answer sheet. This is to falsely make it appear that he too had studied or memorized the same things as the other student. In legal terms these are forgeries and copyright violations. But consider this, a student finds and uses a method to quickly balance a chemical equation while in the class. His friend asks him how but he turns down to reveal him the trick. So the friend, tries hard and comes up with his own method to balance chemical equations faster. It may or may not be the same method. Does anyone have a problem here?
Now imagine, that the first student goes to his teacher and complains that the other student has "stolen" his "idea" and asks the teacher to look in to it. The teacher forces the other student to reveal his method and finds some similarities between the two methods. Finally, the teacher tells that nobody should use the shortcut methods except the first student in next 5 examinations and only the first student is allowed to skip certain steps in conventional way of balancing the equation, while all others should write every step. Is this fair? Who is at wrong here? This is exactly what is happening in the fields of science and technology as well as manufacturing and service industries.
By these patents, they are not protecting a certain unique order or pattern of procedures or words or sounds or pixels of creative works. The above mentioned things come under copyrights and trade secrets, which if invented/discovered/guessed independently, is not liable to legal threats as in case of patents. But patents lock ideas. For example, it may be acceptable to keep secret how a vaccine is manufactured (though anyone who has slightest moral responsibility won't lock down an important development like vaccines), but it is totally unacceptable to patent the idea of making a vaccine itself. It will take someone to put the vaccine under analysis and figure out a similar or different way to arrive at an idea to produce the vaccine. Nobody can just "copy" a vaccine sold on market. Also, if it is all about quality and standards, it need not be necessary that the first to make it is the best. These aspects of the vaccine can be regulated by government organizations like FDA.
Let me give you another imaginary case. Dr. Anand is working on an HIV vaccine. He finds that nano-capsules can hold deactivated HIV RNA and can give protection against HIV without any ill effects. He applies for a patent, not for the HIV vaccine but for the "idea" of "making a drugs by injecting genetic materials in nano-particles" (Yes, this is how patent names sound). Later Dr. Abdul who is working on cure for cancer finds that healthy DNA from normal cells contained in nano-crystals can trigger apoptosis (cell-death) in cancerous cells. But due to existing patents, this new drug couldn't be produced or distributed, unless Dr. Abdul enters in to an agreement with Dr. Anand to share profits or pay royalties or to sell his "idea" or even Dr. Anand can deny him permission without options. Else it will result in a lawsuit in patent courts taking years to prove that nano-capsules are different from nano-crystals or both are same and Dr. Abdul should pay huge sum of money in damages. As a last resort, Dr. Abdul can wait till the patents of Dr. Anand expire. In all cases, Dr. Abdul didn't get the due credit for his research efforts. Dr. Anand who never had anything to do with Dr. Abdul can possibly get a good share of his profits. The progress in field of nano-medicine by other researchers is delayed. Millions of people will suffer and die during these lengthy processes.
One relief, if you consider this blog worthy and if at all in future someone patents a nano-particle based vaccine or medicine, you can possibly quote this as a "prior-art" to evade that patent.I know for sure that this line of thought could have already come to millions of people around the world from school children to scientists. And I am sure that once nano-particles are common, it will not be long to have nano-medicines on the shelves. And this line of argument can be extended to any of the so called patents. Before anyone filed a particular patent, it could have come in the mind of at least one another person before. It should involve one or more existing ideas. It is all about mixing or improving ideas. Nothing exists on its own and no idea is Ex Nihilo! If that is the for ideas, there are patents on genetic materials, plants and chemicals. I really wonder how materials can be patented! And that is totally another area to dig in, I think.
Give two colours and ask people to mix, then they will end up with millions of shades. Yet no one owns any right over any particular shade. And they all have imitated the "idea" of mixing colours! The same goes with ideas. They are countless and not bound by any laws that explain how they should be mixed. Ideas are free. They can't be assigned to someone. The mere assignment of an idea to someone through patent won't make one its owner. Others still can imagine or improve the idea in their minds. Ideas can start and end in minds or can be communicated to others. You can't claim that you own an idea or you are the first to have it only because you are the first to communicate it to patent office or a corporate. If you want to lock down an idea, don't tell anyone and let it die in your mind. The moment you tell it or make it tangible in any other form, you can't lock it anymore. Ideas are same like sun. You don't burn sun faster by absorbing its heat using a solar panel or you can't save sun by reflecting back its lights using mirror.
Some may ask "Where is the advantage of being the first? What is the benefit for all the research and development involved in the process of arriving at the idea?" Here it is. Monthly salary or research grants, fame and sense of achievement and satisfaction are the rewards one gets for an idea. Apart from that nobody deserve anything. It is not like "invent once and live rich rest of your life" through royalties by patenting it. As long as we wants money we need to do actual work and work involved arriving at an idea is completed once the idea is reached. Nobody deserves a paycheck for the work done last year right? And also remember any "new idea" comes from the constant evolution of the existing ones back from the dawn of human beings or from the dawn of life or from the big bang itself! Even though your genome is unique, it can be traced back to the first life, so is your idea.
So, there is no harm in imitating anything. That is how we learned everything. That is how we teach everything. That is how we survive as a race of sentient beings. That is how even our cells multiply. If someone wants to restrict that, that is the utmost restriction against progress of knowledge. That is the most severe form of crime. That is the genocide of all our ancestors and their minds. That is the worst human right violation. People can go without food for weeks, water for days, air for minutes. But you can't force anyone from stop thinking. As Descartes put it "We think! Therefore we are!" As we have received the accumulated human wisdom of millennia with little or no cost, we are obliged to give back to humanity in the same note as we have to take care of our parents.
Freely you have received; freely give. -Matthew 10:8 (The Bible)
What has been will be again, what has been done will be done again; there is nothing new under the sun. -Ecclesiastes 1:9 (The Bible)
Control over the use of one's ideas really constitutes control over other people's lives; and it is usually used to make their lives more difficult. -Dr. Richard Stallman, Father of Free Software Movement
Some people confuse copying and imitating and end up saying imitation is wrong, at least in some areas. For example, a child doing exactly what its mother or brother is doing is considered perfectly normal and encouraged, while a student writing(copying by looking in to his paper) exactly what the person sitting next to him is morally evil. So, imitating is allowed and good in one area and morally evil and bad in another. Their argument goes like this. A person can use language, established tools like wheel, fire, knife etc without worrying about patents, but when it is something new, that should be patent protected and only the "owner" of the "idea" should be able to use it (at least for some period of time, may be in years or decades). But they conveniently forget that without all other "existing" ideas, the new idea couldn't be there in the first place!
This is where they get things completely wrong. Most of the people concerned about freedom of knowledge are not against copyrights or trade secrets or trademarks (there are some who oppose copyrights too, and it is out of scope here). We oppose patents alone. Let us see how the student copying from the person next to him is different from a child imitating to learn. First, it is not a process of learning which the student is imitating the other one doing. He is just copying the exact text of his answer sheet. This is to falsely make it appear that he too had studied or memorized the same things as the other student. In legal terms these are forgeries and copyright violations. But consider this, a student finds and uses a method to quickly balance a chemical equation while in the class. His friend asks him how but he turns down to reveal him the trick. So the friend, tries hard and comes up with his own method to balance chemical equations faster. It may or may not be the same method. Does anyone have a problem here?
Now imagine, that the first student goes to his teacher and complains that the other student has "stolen" his "idea" and asks the teacher to look in to it. The teacher forces the other student to reveal his method and finds some similarities between the two methods. Finally, the teacher tells that nobody should use the shortcut methods except the first student in next 5 examinations and only the first student is allowed to skip certain steps in conventional way of balancing the equation, while all others should write every step. Is this fair? Who is at wrong here? This is exactly what is happening in the fields of science and technology as well as manufacturing and service industries.
By these patents, they are not protecting a certain unique order or pattern of procedures or words or sounds or pixels of creative works. The above mentioned things come under copyrights and trade secrets, which if invented/discovered/guessed independently, is not liable to legal threats as in case of patents. But patents lock ideas. For example, it may be acceptable to keep secret how a vaccine is manufactured (though anyone who has slightest moral responsibility won't lock down an important development like vaccines), but it is totally unacceptable to patent the idea of making a vaccine itself. It will take someone to put the vaccine under analysis and figure out a similar or different way to arrive at an idea to produce the vaccine. Nobody can just "copy" a vaccine sold on market. Also, if it is all about quality and standards, it need not be necessary that the first to make it is the best. These aspects of the vaccine can be regulated by government organizations like FDA.
Let me give you another imaginary case. Dr. Anand is working on an HIV vaccine. He finds that nano-capsules can hold deactivated HIV RNA and can give protection against HIV without any ill effects. He applies for a patent, not for the HIV vaccine but for the "idea" of "making a drugs by injecting genetic materials in nano-particles" (Yes, this is how patent names sound). Later Dr. Abdul who is working on cure for cancer finds that healthy DNA from normal cells contained in nano-crystals can trigger apoptosis (cell-death) in cancerous cells. But due to existing patents, this new drug couldn't be produced or distributed, unless Dr. Abdul enters in to an agreement with Dr. Anand to share profits or pay royalties or to sell his "idea" or even Dr. Anand can deny him permission without options. Else it will result in a lawsuit in patent courts taking years to prove that nano-capsules are different from nano-crystals or both are same and Dr. Abdul should pay huge sum of money in damages. As a last resort, Dr. Abdul can wait till the patents of Dr. Anand expire. In all cases, Dr. Abdul didn't get the due credit for his research efforts. Dr. Anand who never had anything to do with Dr. Abdul can possibly get a good share of his profits. The progress in field of nano-medicine by other researchers is delayed. Millions of people will suffer and die during these lengthy processes.
One relief, if you consider this blog worthy and if at all in future someone patents a nano-particle based vaccine or medicine, you can possibly quote this as a "prior-art" to evade that patent.I know for sure that this line of thought could have already come to millions of people around the world from school children to scientists. And I am sure that once nano-particles are common, it will not be long to have nano-medicines on the shelves. And this line of argument can be extended to any of the so called patents. Before anyone filed a particular patent, it could have come in the mind of at least one another person before. It should involve one or more existing ideas. It is all about mixing or improving ideas. Nothing exists on its own and no idea is Ex Nihilo! If that is the for ideas, there are patents on genetic materials, plants and chemicals. I really wonder how materials can be patented! And that is totally another area to dig in, I think.
Give two colours and ask people to mix, then they will end up with millions of shades. Yet no one owns any right over any particular shade. And they all have imitated the "idea" of mixing colours! The same goes with ideas. They are countless and not bound by any laws that explain how they should be mixed. Ideas are free. They can't be assigned to someone. The mere assignment of an idea to someone through patent won't make one its owner. Others still can imagine or improve the idea in their minds. Ideas can start and end in minds or can be communicated to others. You can't claim that you own an idea or you are the first to have it only because you are the first to communicate it to patent office or a corporate. If you want to lock down an idea, don't tell anyone and let it die in your mind. The moment you tell it or make it tangible in any other form, you can't lock it anymore. Ideas are same like sun. You don't burn sun faster by absorbing its heat using a solar panel or you can't save sun by reflecting back its lights using mirror.
Some may ask "Where is the advantage of being the first? What is the benefit for all the research and development involved in the process of arriving at the idea?" Here it is. Monthly salary or research grants, fame and sense of achievement and satisfaction are the rewards one gets for an idea. Apart from that nobody deserve anything. It is not like "invent once and live rich rest of your life" through royalties by patenting it. As long as we wants money we need to do actual work and work involved arriving at an idea is completed once the idea is reached. Nobody deserves a paycheck for the work done last year right? And also remember any "new idea" comes from the constant evolution of the existing ones back from the dawn of human beings or from the dawn of life or from the big bang itself! Even though your genome is unique, it can be traced back to the first life, so is your idea.
So, there is no harm in imitating anything. That is how we learned everything. That is how we teach everything. That is how we survive as a race of sentient beings. That is how even our cells multiply. If someone wants to restrict that, that is the utmost restriction against progress of knowledge. That is the most severe form of crime. That is the genocide of all our ancestors and their minds. That is the worst human right violation. People can go without food for weeks, water for days, air for minutes. But you can't force anyone from stop thinking. As Descartes put it "We think! Therefore we are!" As we have received the accumulated human wisdom of millennia with little or no cost, we are obliged to give back to humanity in the same note as we have to take care of our parents.
Freely you have received; freely give. -Matthew 10:8 (The Bible)
What has been will be again, what has been done will be done again; there is nothing new under the sun. -Ecclesiastes 1:9 (The Bible)
Control over the use of one's ideas really constitutes control over other people's lives; and it is usually used to make their lives more difficult. -Dr. Richard Stallman, Father of Free Software Movement
No comments:
Post a Comment