On this day the 31st of July in 1790, one Samuel Hopkins (aged 47) made a piece of history when his improved method "in the making of Pot ash and Pearl ash by a new Apparatus and Process" became the first US patent with George Washington's signature. This was a way of protecting Samuel Hopkins improvement of an Ethiopian idea which had been used globally for several hundred years. A important milestone in the history of property as theft had been passed.
"As of February 2008, the PTO has granted over 7,950,000 patents"
We now live in a world where everything from gizmo to gimmick, nicknack to genetic code is filed away under a patent or patent-pending.
"As of February 2008, the PTO has granted over 7,950,000 patents"
We now live in a world where everything from gizmo to gimmick, nicknack to genetic code is filed away under a patent or patent-pending.
The result has not been the protection of endeavour rather the usurption of human genius. Capitalist speculation has married that of Science to ensure a world of sick babies whose parents can't afford miracle cures.
Recent history provides the example of Brazilian efforts to bypass US drug-giant Merck's patent on an Aids drug in 2007.
"....Merck offered Brazil almost a third off the cost of production, pricing the pills at $1.10 (£0.55) instead of $1.59. But Brazil wanted its discount pegged at same level as Thailand, which paid just $0.65 per pill. "From an ethical point of view the price difference is grotesque," said President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva. "And from a political point of view, it represents a lack of respect, as though a sick Brazilian is inferior," he added......"
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/6626073.stm
The Brazilians instead looked to Indian-made versions of Efavirenz for just $0.45 each. But patent law is one of the nastiest toothed heads on the hydra monster of globalisation. Last month Brazilians found themselves challenging Indian patent law on HIV drugs yet again as this excerpt from "The Hindu" newspaper attests :-
"....CHENNAI: Patients from Brazil have asked the Delhi patent office not to grant a patent pending on the HIV drug tenofovir because it would prevent the import of low-cost generic medicines from India they say are important for their national AIDS treatment programme, upon which 1,80,000 Brazilians depend.
This is the first time that a group from outside the country has challenged a patent pending in the country since the introduction of product patents in India in 2005. It shows how far other developing countries rely on the production of generic medicines and illustrates the strength of the demand for exports from the Indian pharmaceutical industry.
ABIA (Brazilian Interdisciplinary AIDS Association) filed the opposition jointly with the Indian non-governmental organisation SAHARA (Centre for Residential Care and Rehabilitation) on Thursday to a patent submitted by Gilead Sciences before 2005 and kept in waiting. The Patent Amendment Act, 2005 (Section 25) allows any affected party to object to a patent before it is granted. ABIA and Sahara are appealing on the grounds that the drug is a modification of an already known compound and therefore not eligible for a patent under Section 3(d) of India’s patent law. Gilead also has a patent pending for tenofovir before the patent office in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil.
“We want more options to promote competition in the market and bring down drug prices,” Gabriela Chavez, a pharmacist with ABIA told The Hindu over telephone from Brazil. “If the patent is granted in Brazil but not in India, Brazil has the option to apply for a compulsory licence [a provision for public health emergencies sanctioned by the World Trade Organisation] to buy the drug at lower cost from Indian companies. If the patent is not granted in Brazil or India, Brazil has the option to import either the key ingredients or the finished medicines from Indian companies,” she said......"
http://www.thehindu.com/2008/06/27/stories/2008062761291700.htm
As we see the lack of drugs or technology in the third world is not always due to lack of capability to produce such things - but simply because the right to use an idea has been stolen.
These stories and lawsuits of the theft of ideas are repeated ad nauseum around the world, especially the poor world. Leaving aside that the drugs were made we presume by humans whose gifts had been honed by Western education & universities, perhaps plausibly with a small element of that noble wish to make humanity's lot better not the tower blocks of lawyers who fight the patent claims or the equally tall towerblocks of executive who set the price and worth of treating or not-treating every human being.
Copyright © Trademarks ™ & Patents ® are all the protection systems which steal rather than prevent theft of ideas.
The US Constitution's copyright clause of 1787 predated Samuel Hopkins' by 3 years. "Article I, Section 8, Clause 8 of the United States Constitution, known as the Copyright Clause, the Copyright and Patent Clause (or Patent and Copyright Clause), the Intellectual Property Clause and the Progressive Clause, empowers the United States Congress: “To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_Clause
So We could also remember the Starbucks versus Ethiopia argument on the copyright of coffee beans. 3 years ago the state of Ethiopia began what would become a monumental struggle when they announced their intention to trademark their Coffee Bean. The Ethiopian highlands & the surrounding "horn of Africa" were the origin of the drink coffee as far back as the 9th century [common era]. Specifically the Ethiopian state wanted to assert internationally recognised intellectual copyright on a range of coffee beans which to this day are mostly cultivated in the east African state. Many welcomed the move as evidence that late 20th century capitalism which has seen ownership concepts extended to ideas, living organisms & even specific genecodes could be a game which the poorest states might play to their advantage as well. Then came the orchestrated response of the Seattle USA based multi-national corporation Starbucks
(c/f this comment for more http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2008/06/401728.html?c=on#c198218 )
If we accept that the cornerstone of capitalism and materialism is the usurption of the right to land use and the ridiculous notion that land or subsoil may be owned, as most Anarchists do, then we must also accept that the next brick of the structure is Patent and Copyright law.
________________________{(©)/(™)+®)} = {($)/(£)+(€)}____________________
"Information wants to be Free"
"Until information is free no human will be free".
________________________{(©)/(™)+®)} = {($)/(£)+(€)}____________________
Wikilinks
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patent
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trademark
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USPTO
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Idea-expression_divide
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Software_patents_under_TRIPs_Agreement
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Software_patents_under_the_European_Patent_Convention
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computer_programs_and_the_Patent_Cooperation_Treaty
Recent history provides the example of Brazilian efforts to bypass US drug-giant Merck's patent on an Aids drug in 2007.
"....Merck offered Brazil almost a third off the cost of production, pricing the pills at $1.10 (£0.55) instead of $1.59. But Brazil wanted its discount pegged at same level as Thailand, which paid just $0.65 per pill. "From an ethical point of view the price difference is grotesque," said President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva. "And from a political point of view, it represents a lack of respect, as though a sick Brazilian is inferior," he added......"
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/6626073.stm The Brazilians instead looked to Indian-made versions of Efavirenz for just $0.45 each. But patent law is one of the nastiest toothed heads on the hydra monster of globalisation. Last month Brazilians found themselves challenging Indian patent law on HIV drugs yet again as this excerpt from "The Hindu" newspaper attests :-
"....CHENNAI: Patients from Brazil have asked the Delhi patent office not to grant a patent pending on the HIV drug tenofovir because it would prevent the import of low-cost generic medicines from India they say are important for their national AIDS treatment programme, upon which 1,80,000 Brazilians depend.
This is the first time that a group from outside the country has challenged a patent pending in the country since the introduction of product patents in India in 2005. It shows how far other developing countries rely on the production of generic medicines and illustrates the strength of the demand for exports from the Indian pharmaceutical industry.
ABIA (Brazilian Interdisciplinary AIDS Association) filed the opposition jointly with the Indian non-governmental organisation SAHARA (Centre for Residential Care and Rehabilitation) on Thursday to a patent submitted by Gilead Sciences before 2005 and kept in waiting. The Patent Amendment Act, 2005 (Section 25) allows any affected party to object to a patent before it is granted. ABIA and Sahara are appealing on the grounds that the drug is a modification of an already known compound and therefore not eligible for a patent under Section 3(d) of India’s patent law. Gilead also has a patent pending for tenofovir before the patent office in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil.
“We want more options to promote competition in the market and bring down drug prices,” Gabriela Chavez, a pharmacist with ABIA told The Hindu over telephone from Brazil. “If the patent is granted in Brazil but not in India, Brazil has the option to apply for a compulsory licence [a provision for public health emergencies sanctioned by the World Trade Organisation] to buy the drug at lower cost from Indian companies. If the patent is not granted in Brazil or India, Brazil has the option to import either the key ingredients or the finished medicines from Indian companies,” she said......"
http://www.thehindu.com/2008/06/27/stories/2008062761291700.htm As we see the lack of drugs or technology in the third world is not always due to lack of capability to produce such things - but simply because the right to use an idea has been stolen.
These stories and lawsuits of the theft of ideas are repeated ad nauseum around the world, especially the poor world. Leaving aside that the drugs were made we presume by humans whose gifts had been honed by Western education & universities, perhaps plausibly with a small element of that noble wish to make humanity's lot better not the tower blocks of lawyers who fight the patent claims or the equally tall towerblocks of executive who set the price and worth of treating or not-treating every human being.
Copyright © Trademarks ™ & Patents ® are all the protection systems which steal rather than prevent theft of ideas.
The US Constitution's copyright clause of 1787 predated Samuel Hopkins' by 3 years. "Article I, Section 8, Clause 8 of the United States Constitution, known as the Copyright Clause, the Copyright and Patent Clause (or Patent and Copyright Clause), the Intellectual Property Clause and the Progressive Clause, empowers the United States Congress: “To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_Clause So We could also remember the Starbucks versus Ethiopia argument on the copyright of coffee beans. 3 years ago the state of Ethiopia began what would become a monumental struggle when they announced their intention to trademark their Coffee Bean. The Ethiopian highlands & the surrounding "horn of Africa" were the origin of the drink coffee as far back as the 9th century [common era]. Specifically the Ethiopian state wanted to assert internationally recognised intellectual copyright on a range of coffee beans which to this day are mostly cultivated in the east African state. Many welcomed the move as evidence that late 20th century capitalism which has seen ownership concepts extended to ideas, living organisms & even specific genecodes could be a game which the poorest states might play to their advantage as well. Then came the orchestrated response of the Seattle USA based multi-national corporation Starbucks
(c/f this comment for more
http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2008/06/401728.html?c=on#c198218 ) If we accept that the cornerstone of capitalism and materialism is the usurption of the right to land use and the ridiculous notion that land or subsoil may be owned, as most Anarchists do, then we must also accept that the next brick of the structure is Patent and Copyright law.
________________________{(©)/(™)+®)} = {($)/(£)+(€)}____________________
"Information wants to be Free"
"Until information is free no human will be free".
________________________{(©)/(™)+®)} = {($)/(£)+(€)}____________________
Wikilinks
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patent http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trademark http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USPTO http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Idea-expression_divide http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Software_patents_under_TRIPs_Agreement http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Software_patents_under_the_European_Patent_Convention http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computer_programs_and_the_Patent_Cooperation_Treaty 
Comments
Display the following 6 comments