The road to creativity was long and arduous; and it has remained so. Hence, it’s our moral and legal responsibility to recognise the original inventor. However, making Intellectual Property all-inclusive will remain a paper dream, unless we shed some of the profit motives while extracting maximum benefits of our creations
The World Intellectual Property Day, observed on April 26, was first celebrated in 2000. The World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO), a specialised agency of the UN, had decided in the same year to designate a World IP Day mainly to address the gap between the IP as a business or legal concept and its usefulness for the common people. And this particular date was chosen for the occasion as on the same day, the convention establishing WIPO was held in 1970. Since then, the World IP Day has been observed across the world with an aim to enhance the common man’s awareness and understanding of IP.
As IP has always remained an exclusive domain of lawyers, professionals and corporate giants, there is an urgent need to bring it to the public domain.
What do people exactly do on World IP DayIJ The WIPO, with 189 nations as members, enjoys a worldwide network and it has grown exponentially since its inception. It closely works with various government, non-governmental organisations (NGOs), civil society organisations (CSOs), community groups and individuals to hold events and activities to popularise the IP, its application, safeguards and benefits emerging from the same. Such activities may include, but not restricted to:
a. Organise concerts or live performances around the theme of each year’s IP Day so as to spread awareness to highlight respect for the innovators and innovations across the world.
b. Essay contests for young people on IP, piracy, innovation, counterfeiting, and other emerging issues like the protection of traditional knowledge, etc.
c. Free seminars, workshops and dialogues in educational institutions to discuss about the benefits of protecting IP.
d. Finally, exhibitions in public galleries, halls, museums and in schools, colleges and in universities to demonstrate the link between exhibitions, innovations and IP.
As the World IP Day is not a designated public holiday, there is much more scope to promote, debate and discuss the fruits of protecting the future and existing creations, while strongly condemning the massive counterfeiting efforts made by millions across the globe.
This year’s theme of the IP Day being “Innovation-Improving lives”, we need to explore how a creative effort can bring home change in everyday life. Surely, with giant technological moves coming in, innovation has become much easier than what it used to be some 100 years back. Indeed, improving lives through innovation and creativity have long been a part and parcel of mankind. Not to move far, what we could rightly see in the 19th century was that only two prominent and trendsetting inventions — the arrival of the “steam engine and electricity” — had successfully changed the life and times of human civilisation. Further, the subsequent research and its application into these two areas led to the development of transportation; telegraph, etc, that revolutionised the entire dynamics of regular mode of our movement and communication. These technological developments are indeed more than innovations. And undoubtedly, such innovations have helped human civilisations erase the primeval boundaries of our experience and usher in a new age. It seemed to be an annihilation of time and space wherein we had witnessed the turning of a century. For many of us, it has brought a unique historical rupture. Thus, innovation and development travelled together and left a huge impact on our socio-cultural, economic, political, psychological and surely on our philosophical dynamics. It is felt as if these path-breaking creations were aptly reflected in Jesse Hutchinson Jr.’s (of the Hutchinson
Family Singers) 1850 song ‘Uncle Sam’s Farm’:
“Our fathers gave us liberty, but little did they dream
The grand results that pour along this mighty age of steam;
For our mountains, lakes and rivers are all a blaze of fire,
And we send our news by lightening on the telegraphic wires”.
What an amazing journey that we all have taken as far as scientific progress moved on. Much before the invention of steam engine and electricity, what made all of us help spread our knowledge was no other than the arrival of the printing press way back in 1440. Knowledge gathering and information sharing had then only taken a leap from where earlier generations started. In fact, by the invention of the Internet, information revolution has surprised humanity beyond imagination. Thus knowledge-based industries have moved to the centre stage of innovation. Precisely, the “leadership of the world in the 21st century will increasingly be in the hands of those who create and harness knowledge. The century often called the century of knowledge, is indeed the century of the mind” (Alikhan and Mashelkar 2009). This century of the mind has redefined the contours of civilisational dialogues, narratives and even the very shape of our rural-urban divide. Just before the establishment of the WTO in 1995, Kenichi Ohmae (1994) popularised the concept of a “borderless world” and in 1992, Marshall Mcluhan coined the term “global village”. But then by 2005, when Thomas Friedman gave the world his masterpiece, “The World is Flat: A Brief History of the 21st Century”, he told us entirely a different tale quite opposite of what we could gather from Christopher Columbus’s 1492 historic voyage wherein he found “the world as round”. However, Friedman’s was neither a sea voyage nor a global expedition, but his was conditioned by gigantic movements of all new technology and geo-economics of our time. He saw a fundamental reshaping of our lives much more quickly than anyone had ever realised. From 2005 to 2017, we have seen too many developments that this planet could have even not imagined a century ago. It is all about the emergence of one after another invention that has altered the very concept of mobility in our life. Global has become local and the local has crossed all the mental and physical boundaries of humanity. But more than inventions what we could simply say is that we are undergoing a vast process of innovation chain. We are using and reusing the knowledge that we have received from our predecessors, wherein IP plays a significant role. Again, IP is different from physical property because of some of its unique features. But “there is no doubt that most of IP or ideas, be it technological breakthroughs or rather incremental innovations, is basically the result of individual effort, labour and/or cooperative work” (Freytag and Pehnelt 2007). It is very natural that a person who applies his labour and ideas for producing something usable will always have the right to own that particular product. Because anything on which you laboured upon can create an additional value for the existing object or idea. The person who creates the extra value to the existing thing or idea must be rewarded. Therefore, philosophers like John locke (1690) and Robert Nozick (1974) regarded this kind of right as natural right to property. From a normative perspective, we can always say that an individual’s labour must be respected. Thus, issuing legal rights by the State and its agencies to exploit the new creative work is always justified and this can be regarded as a reward for someone’s labour. Arendt clearly states that “the ownership of the innovation put individuals or groups in an economic and psychological position that gives them the opportunity and the duty to use this new resource soundly”. An innovative activity might boost the economic standard of an individual or a group and in turn it helps the society at large.
While celebrating the World IP Day this year, WIPO Director General Francis Gurry correctly said, “Intellectual property is a crucial part of a successful innovation system. It provides a return for those who take the risk to introduce the ‘new’ — in terms of products and services — into the economy. It provides a framework for the rather difficult and challenging journey that any idea has to undertake before becoming a commercially available product or service.”
Ideas are more precious than its application. More and more innovations improve lives and bring well-being to humanity. When knowledge and information becomes subject to ownership, the IPRs offer legal benefits for the rightful owner or the innovator. There are three main features which precisely highlight these benefits: first, “the ability to charge rent for use, second, the right to receive the compensation for loss, and third, the right to demand payment for transfer to another party through the market” (May and Sell, 2008). And with the expansion of the global knowledge economy (GKE), the original owners of information have become increasingly aware about the worth of their intangible properties. However, two most prominent categories of IPRs, which normally generate more controversy and also bring enormous revenue are industrial IP i.e. patents and literary or artistic IP i.e. copyrights.
With the coming of the Trade Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS) Agreement in 1995, the global IP governance system has technically moved from the WIPO to the World Trade Organization (WTO). It was supposed to bring in “one-size-fits-all” kind of a universal system for streamlining complex rules, regulations and mechanisms that existed so far till that year. But amid growing debates on globalisation and inequality, this historic opportunity (as many quoted) became a liability for the developing and the least developing nations as they had to undergo extreme coercive measures to overhaul either their archaic or near non-existent IP governance systems to standards of the advanced nations.
Thus, the skeptics say that IP is nothing but another tool to impose western imperialism and this time with a new wave of grand multinational structures which are at the forefront to strongly protect their commercial interests than safeguarding the interests of the common man. They argue that IPRs violate basic rights, particularly human rights. Also they say that human rights are more important and crucial for the survival of mankind than the IPRs. The “Maximise Principle” proposed by Rawls (1971) tries to maximise the utility of individuals who are worst off within a society. His maximising principle opposes a strong IPR system purely on moral grounds. Therefore, many such as Nobel laureate Joseph Stiglitz, who generally had voiced his concerns against uneven globalisation and call the laissez faire economists as “free market fundamentalists” say that “Intellectual Property reinforces inequality”. When business interests overshadow people’s interests, it will be the same old game — the poor and the underprivileged are destined to be hurt by the massive exploitation of indigenous and traditional knowledge mainly in Africa and in Asia. In this regard Stiglitz’s apprehensions cannot be brushed aside in entirety. Since the accession of the global IP trade regime by the WTO in 1995, various NGOs, the CSOs and independent social movements across the developing nations have raised their concerns against the over imposing agenda inbuilt in the TRIPS. The opponents of IP say that some of the innovations made by pharmaceutical companies are found to be maximising more profits than saving innocent civilians. Today, costs of many diagnostic tests required for essential health checks are exorbitantly high, which the private players could have really made much cheaper. Not surprisingly a number of such pharmaceutical giants quite often make laboured arguments to demonstrate that how their patents are truly essential to encourage future research. Anyway, patents of any nature offers exclusive rights to the owner for at least a period of 20 years. Then how have such innovations, contributing to improve the lives of many in the periphery, always remained a serious question not only when we celebrate the World IP Day each year but also when we encounter roadblocks to avail the basic necessities such as food, shelter, essential medicines, etcIJ Unfortunately on many occasions, “when the devastating effects of its patents became apparent, and it remained adamant in exerting its full monopoly rights, these pretensions of interest in the greater good were woefully unconvincing” (Stiglitz 2013). This kind of a situation repeatedly warns the poor and economically weaker sections about the dangers of once again being encircled by corporate greed in the name of just protecting their IP rights.
Is it worth talking about IP as tool for social well-being or simply an age-old system to exploit the resources of the developing nationsIJ Truly speaking, IP can be used as both. If applied in the true sense of the term, IP can generate massive employment opportunities and can be a driver for social well-being. But then the moot question is how IP can be of any help to those millions who do not have the bare minimum to survive. When they have no single tangible asset, how can they be made a part of the grand innovation efforts spearheaded by rich nationsIJ Will it continuously bother the critics of IP foreverIJ Making IP all-inclusive will remain a paper dream, unless we shed some of the profit motives while extracting maximum benefits of our creations.
There is an urgent need to explore and exploit divergent disciplinary resources and convergences so as to develop a comprehensive idea about the complexities involved in the IP landscape. The WIPO, being the pioneer international organisation in this field, has offered a vast pool of opportunities, resources and mechanisms through a network of its member states to address interminable Intellectual Property (IP) issue linkages in global governance. According to FBI, Interpol, World Customs Organization and International Chamber of Commerce estimates, roughly 7-8 per cent of world trade every year is in counterfeit goods. That is the equivalent of as much as $512 billion in global lost sales. Of that amount, US companies lose between $200 billion and $250 billion. Which sectors are most affectedIJ IP theft poses a risk to all industry sectors; those most commonly affected by IP theft are manufacturing, consumer goods, technology, software, and biotechnology, including pharmaceuticals.
In the epilogue, the international community in general and millions of innovators in particular must ensure that original creators get their due: the dignity of their labour and full benefits for commercial exploitation of every creation that they have made. And for this, we all must be guided by the prophetic words of Albert Einstein who once said, “If I have seen further than others, it is only by standing upon the shoulders of the giants”. The message is plain and simple — with every effort that we take up for creative destruction; we must unabashedly acknowledge the initial steps once created by our forerunners. The road to creativity was long and arduous; and it has remained so. Hence, it’s our moral and legal responsibility to recognise the original inventor. So the real stakes are much higher than what they are commonly understood.
(The writer is an expert on international affairs)