Hi Charles, My replies below:
On 7/27/07, Charles Haynes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On 7/26/07, Venkatesh Hariharan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > I cannot think of anything more immoral than patents on surgical > procedures. > > Really? Wow. How about the Armenian Genocide, Stalin's starvation of > the Ukraine, the Rape of Nanking, the Holocaust, Pol Pot in Cambodia, > Rwanda, or the ethnic cleansing of Bosnia? > > Hyperbole is all fine and good, but it also has the effect of > trivializing and devaluing things for which the terms are actually > appropriate. I meant within the context of knowledge. I refuse to use the term IP--because I don't think intellect can be reduced to property. The whole notion of IP, IMHO is typical of western reductive logic and I argue that to negotiate on the basis of IP is to negotiate with developed countries on their own turf. After all they "own" much of what they call "IP" while using our IP (yoga, ayurveda etc) for free. And now they also want to file copyrights on yoga sequences. Not acceptable at all. > This is what happens when the trend of commoditising and pricing knowledge > > goes too far. Are you equating patents and markets? My immediate interest is in software patents but it is impossible to talk about software patents without looking at how different cultures treat knowledge. In my (admittedly limited) reading of Indian history, I have not come across the term "intellectual property." Yet, most policy makers routinely use this word. This is one of the best examples of skilled brainwashing and also an example of the decline of Indian intellectual traditions and its desire to ape the west. I have nothing agsinst the west and some of my collaborators are from the west. All I am saying is that what is right for the west is not necessarily appropriate in the Indian context. When we haven't treated intellect as property for more than 5000 years, what is the need to suddenly do so? Don't get me wrong. I hate patents on intellectual property, and I > personally both decline to file them and offer to assist the companies > I work for in fighting them (for example providing DEC with examples > of prior art when defending against bogus patent claims.) However I > think you weaken our case by confounding arguments against patents > with arguments against IP in general. > > A matter of style perhaps, so take my comments as a suggestion or an > indication of how your arguments may come across even to people who > agree with you. > > -- Charles Charles, thanks for the comments and you are probably right within the western context. However, in India, we have been so brainwashed by the notion of "intellectual property" that it takes some strong words to get people to look at the other side of the debate. Venky
