Irrelevance of Relevance 004

G: Can we have one more global example of cause-effect obsession syndrome, cause-effect inverse and relevance of irrelevance?
S: Oh, sure. First, let us deal with what causes some people to seek right to intellectual property (IP) and its protection from being copied for commercial purposes. Those who have anything that is novel that they have designed or discovered or invented may have a need for IP protection. They want to make money from their own IP or at least want to get recognition for their contribution. Some of those who think and can demonstrate that they have created something novel and the use of that creation by others should be subject to their permission which they may grant at their discretion, if necessary against payment of some monetary consideration by those they have agreed to allow such use.
G: The cause is the desire on the part of the creator to benefit from his/ her creation and the effect is the demand for IP.
S: Yes. But there is an underlying reality that is not so explicitly stated. If X has invented something that can be successfully commercialized and money made without any possibility of copying on commercial scale by others, there is no need for IP protection. Unfortunately, for most creations copying is generally very easy. Therefore, restriction on copying is what is being sought. The cause-effect obsession syndrome starts then as follows: if you allow free copying no one will have incentive to create or innovate things that can help human society to progress. So, IP right is nothing but negation of human right to copy.
G: Right to copy!
S: Yes, freedom to copy can be regarded as a fundamental human right. Without copying human civilization cannot exist. From the childhood you learn to copy and parents urge you to copy them so that you can live. You must copy how to walk, how to keep yourself clean, how to eat and drink, how to talk, how to read, write and communicate, sing, dance and so on.
G: So, the cause-effect inverse here is that if you do not allow free copying right, human society cannot make progress. If I am not allowed to copy running and innovate as to how I can increase my speed of running, how do I catch a thieve running away stealing my money from my pocket?
S: You are right. That is why many creators themselves want that their creation be freely copied without any restriction. They enjoy that many people benefit by costless copying of their inventions. The greater is the incidence of copying the greater is their delight.
G: So, you are against copyright laws.
S: Please do not jump to conclusion without logical justification. I recognize the natural need and right to copy. I also agree to the need for copyright laws. If copyright laws are not there, authors will not write for a book, publishers will not publish books, music companies will not record songs, movies, dramas and events on tapes, audio/ video cassettes, compact disks etc. But despite all copyright and patent laws, we have official sales of recorded music industry falling behind the sales of illegal copying based pirated music distribution industry. A similar thing happens in pharmaceuticals industry. The official industry has to innovate to make unauthorised copying and piracy uneconomic and restricted. That is the technological and marketing challenge the official industry has to take up.
G: So, you say that both copyright and copying will continue.
S: Yes. But one should note that not all things that you see some other person do can be copied or at least easily copied by you or others. There are a few possibilities of copying: a novel creation can be easily copied sooner or later, or difficult to copy even after a long time, or almost impossible to copy in the foreseeable future. There are a few possibilities on the cost of creation: a novel creation without much cost (resource, time and/ or effort) or with substantial cost. For simplicity, we can have six possible combinations: (a) easy creation & easy copying, (b) easy creation but difficult copying, (c) easy creation and impossible to copy, (d) difficult creation and easy to copy, (e) difficult creation and difficult copying, and (f) difficult creation and impossible to copy. For (c) and (f) categories, there is no problem. Problem arises in the remaining four cases.
G: Creations of category (a) also does not pose any problem. For that which is easy to create, there is nothing that the first creator can demand to be compensated for. The same thing may have been created soon even if the first creator had not been the first to create.
S: You are right. Categories (b) and (e) also do not pose much of a problem because there is an embedded IP protection for quite some time, copying being difficult. Real problem arises in the case of (d) category creations: if you do not protect the commercial interest of inventions/ innovations that cost much time, effort and money but easy to copy, adequate effort and money may not be attracted to the creative process of innovations and inventions. As a result, the society may suffer from slower progress of the human society.
G: For (d), therefore everyone will agree to Intellectual Property Right (IPR) and IPR protection.
S: I also believe that everyone will agree.
G: Then where does the debate originate?
S: It arises from how the inventions or creations are classified as novel creations of category (d) and how long the protection is granted for them. Failure to identify creations of category (d) as such or inadequate protection period for such category creations may hurt the process of creations and therefore the interest of the creators and the progress of human society, though the copiers may be benefited.
G: On the other hand, creators of (a) category creations may try to show that their creations are category (d) creations. This will also hurt the process of innovations besides hurting the society’s interest.
S: You are right. Thus, the problem arises not with IPR protection as such but with the way the IPR protection is ensured in the case of (d) category creations: short, unambiguous laws on IPR, proper identification of IP creations of category (d), and the enforcement of such IPR. This clearly is not an easy task and cannot be handled of run-of-the-mill, ordinary bureaucrats. It requires highly perceptive scientist personnel capable of quick decisions on IPR protection applications and IPR protection intelligence and police personnel with adequate powers and accountability.
G: But this is an almost impossible task in large population countries with high propensity to copy clandestinely without paying the creators any consideration
S: Yes. That is why India and China may find it difficult to have strong and effective IPR regimes.
G: But there are non-profit foundations which do lot of collaborative research on the basis of what is called open source model of development as in the case of software development. These foundations and the people who participate in open source software and other scientific problem solving do not seem to worry about IPR or the pecuniary or reputation/ recognition prize rewards.
S: You are right. This is new model of development of science and technology is driven by motivations like the psychologically good feeling of being challenged by various unsolved problems or of being part of an open community of problem solvers or simply the scope of learning new things. Often, such open, collaborative efforts results in faster cracking of problems than the time taken by the closed door, secretive scientific and technological in-house research undertaken by company R&D and research institutions.
G: If that were so, why do we emphasize on IPR?
S: First, complete open source process of creative innovation and invention may not suit all areas of science and for large companies to depend on. Second, such open, collaborative efforts at problem sharing and problem solving may actually increase the efficiency of problem solving within companies and research institutions. Third, the open-source, collaborative efforts can also lead to new regimes for IPR protection laws. Those who participate in the open, collaborative processes may get something in the nature of free stock options: options in this case will be on the sharing of gains from patents based on collaborative generation of solutions to scientific and technological problems.
G: Ultimately, strong IPR regimes will help countries like India and China to gain faster.
S: Yes, relatively low income countries with large population of scientifically trained minds should do better by giving up the practice of copying and start participating in open source development of science and technology. It is a cause-effect obsession syndrome that leads us to believe that IPR protection is in the interest of already advanced, rich countries and multinational companies. When we look at open source process of scientific and technology research, we develop a cause-effect inversion. Then, we start seeing that effectively designed and implemented IPR regimes are relevant to poor countries like us: reliance on unauthorized copying the creations of foreign innovators and denying IPR to foreign innovators actually hurt countries like us more than the advanced Western countries.
G: But you can’t expect poor countries to spend huge amount of resources to innovate.
S: The issue is that can poorer countries remove their poverty through copying. Both the goal of lifting huge populations from poverty and the means of copying are wrong. The goal should have been to enable each of their citizens to become as rich as possible. If you aim low, you achieve only that. If you aim high, you apply your brain better and succeed. But whether you aim low or high is not within your choice. The means to achieve the goal should have been to allow creative and productive talents in science, technology and entrepreneurship inherent in human beings to flower.
G: How can poor, uneducated people identify and use their talents? You have to educate them first. That is why the State plans programs to do that.
S: State can only plan. The State cannot implement and get the results. People achieve the results individually and groups at their pace. Directing, controlling and cajoling them do not help. If State plans for the people, the people think that it is the State that has the responsibility for and capability of achieving what the State plans.
G: If the State does not arrange for economic and social development, who will?
S: You suffer from Cause-Effect Syndrome. You think planning is the cause and achievement of desired goals is the effect without any scientific basis. Did all inventions and discoveries in this World result from State planning? Confront the Cause-Effect Inverse by finding how state planning and initiative had caused the following effects: the proof that the Earth revolves around the Sun and the Sun does not revolve around the Earth, the discovery of the theory of relativity, the building of the first airplane, the use of the wireless technology, the development of the principles of management, the technique of double-entry book keeping, the popularity of cricket or soccer or Lawn Tennis all over World, the proliferation of amusement parks and shopping malls, the development of plastic money. State is irrelevant to the progress of human civilization.
G: But some States do better than others!
S: Yes, that happens because some States allow greater economic freedom to citizens and allows merit and talent to compete in exerting their influence on how the State functions. Such states may do better than other states that curb individual freedom, encourages acquiescence, rewards loyalty to the Ruling class and requires merit and talent to seek State patronage.
G: You mean to say that India’s economic development in the last 60 years was possible without the State’s direction, control and initiatives.
S: Whatever India or any other country has achieved so far is purely because of individual enterprise. The results achieved are not because, but in spite, of the adverse effect of State’s active meddling with economic affairs of the country.
G: Why do you say in spite of the State?
S: Because State planning and control has constrained the progress of education, dynamism of entrepreneurial risk taking, motivation to excel, and so on. When the whole World was available for Indians to acquire knowledge, to trade with and gain, to compete with and succeed, the Indian State ensured that the people of India live virtually isolated from the World. Economic freedom was snatched away from the citizens by the State in India. Citizens that live in economic serfdom perpetuated by the State’s over-riding power cannot deliver outstanding results on a sustained basis.
G: Why did India choose the State-ist model, if what you say is true.
S: There is one and only one reason: You choose as your nature permits you. That’s getting back to Stochastic Destiny Principle, as you would like to point out.
G: But since the economic liberalization started in 1991, India has become less Statist.
S: That is your illusion. Instead of a fixed short chain that you tug in the neck-collar of the dog you can use an expandable-and-contractible chain also. That is not freedom.
G: How is this relevant to IPR. You have a tendency to digress!
S: This is another example of the Relevance of the Irrelevance. When you are so obsessed with State-ism, you cannot imagine the potential of economic freedom to the citizens. Unless the individuals are free, exploitation of creativity is constrained. The citizens are forced to copy rather than innovate since the State does not believe in IPR.
G: But we have copyrights and patents since long.
S: Yes, some legislation exited till the recent changes took place. But we know how high has been the incidence of violation of copyrights, trademarks and patents as also the extent of piracy in recorded audio/ videotapes and CDs, drugs, automobile spares and so on.
G: In such a huge country, enforcement is not an easy task.
S: It all depends whether one chooses to be equal to the task. One makes choice one is naturally inclined to make. That’s your destiny. But that does not justify the poor enforcement record. Poor IPR laws and poor enforcement encourages copying, breeds mediocrity, discourages innovations and kills motivation to excel, which hurts economic and social progress. Copying clandestinely, according to me, is an activity of people with low self-esteem.
G: If you are poor, you are prone to copying.
S: You are right. Some poor people find no alternative but to steal to live their lives. Some other poor people organize muscle power to become bandits to commit robbery or become terrorists. Some other poor people just tolerate their poverty. It all depends on the natural inclinations of the individuals. Violation of copy rights, trademarks and patent laws, however, are committed generally by rich people, even if they belong to poor countries.
G: You do not seem to be interested in prescribing solutions.
S: Prescribing solution is easy. In fact, our discussions point to alternative solutions. The responsibility of choosing a particular solution and the success or failure of a chosen solution lies only with those who want to solve the problem. They choose according to their natural inclinations. That is in accordance of the stochastic destiny principle.
G: As usual, we have to close this session without reaching an agreement.