TO BE OR NOT TO BE

Intellectual property rights - an extremely comprehensive term and a conflict in itself. Looking at the history of this concept, WIPO (World Intellectual Property Organization) became an agency in 1974, but its roots go back to 1883 when the need for international protection of intellectual property prompted the Paris Convention for the Protection of Industrial Property and to 1886 with the Bern Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works. Some critics of intellectual property, such as those in the “free culture movement”, characterize it as intellectual protectionism, intellectual monopoly or government-granted monopoly, and argue the public interest is harmed by protectionist legislation such as copyright extension, software patents and business method patents. So when a person A says “It’s my idea and therefore I should protect it.” On the contrary, a person B says “It’s your idea and let the world use it. We live in a sociable world after all!”

Both the ideas are contradictory in nature and leave a layman only baffled. Under intellectual property law, owners are granted certain exclusive rights to a variety of intangible assets, such as musical, literary, and artistic works; discoveries and inventions; and words, phrases, symbols, and designs. Common types of intellectual property include copyrights, trademarks, patents, industrial design rights and trade secrets in some jurisdictions. It is natural that a person who has written a novel by putting years of hard work into it would not want it to be illegally distributed among masses. This is precisely the reason why that person will get his work “copyrighted”.

Here is another scenario which talks about “patents” on anti-retroviral (ARV) drugs to fight AIDS. Out of humanity, anyone would say that every AIDS patient deserves humanitarian care and medicinal treatment, irrespective of where s/he is from or the laws of his/her Country. The patents on ARVs limit the freedom to manufacture these life-saving drugs and also hike the cost of treatment, thereby barring most patients from obtaining such treatment. It is natural to say that patents should be removed on such drugs.

This never-ending debate continues. Sounds like a vicious circle, doesn’t it? Just like the two sides of a coin, “intellectual property rights” presents to us both the humane and inhumane nature of mankind. There is no “right” or “wrong”. It depends on how we look at it. Here’s a thought that I am going to leave you with.

Where there is an invention, there is a possibility of better living. How- is the question!

References:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intellectual_property

http://wapedia.mobi/en/Criticism_of_intellectual_property

http://debatewise.org/debates/999-all-patents-should-be-removed-on-anti-retroviral-drugs-to-fight-aids#point_5081_headline

(Footnote: I am working in the field of Intellectual Property Rights for the past (almost) one year and interestingly, it both appeals and not appeals to me! I had written this article for my company's newsletter and have tried to bring about both the positive and negative aspects of IPR!)