From Bernard.Lang@inria.fr Sun, 18 Jul 1999 10:39:50 +0200 (MET DST)
Date: Sun, 18 Jul 1999 10:39:50 +0200 (MET DST)
From: Bernard Lang Bernard.Lang@inria.fr
Subject: [Patents] UNDP Human Development report 1999

UNDP is part of the United Nations.

The report contains one stupid suggestion: to introduce a BIT TAX.
It is stupid for many economic reasons, and also for another one,
namely that it would handicap most the development of open source,
which is (though they do not yet realize that) going against their
own objectives.

  But the report is most interesting reading in its entirety
(115 2columns pages + annexes). It is full of statistics and
figures, and the long chapter two is largely devoted to
technology evolution and ownership of intellectual property.

There is much discussion about the TRIPS agreement of 1986,
showing that it was intended mostly for stopping counterfeit
manufactured goods, and was hijacked for other purposes.

Two excerpts from page 73:

The relentless march of intellectual property rights needs to be
stopped and questioned.


and in BOX 2.9:


----------
        Questioning the ownership of knowledge

Innovation is one of the most important processes for human
development. It pushes human capability forward and keeps cultures
thriving. It is also at the heart of the human quest to expand
knowledge. But are patents always the best way to promote innovation
in new technologies? There are good reasons to question this common
claim.

Experts question current trends

Some scientists are appalled by the scramble for patents for
commercial gain, believing that it damages research openness about
discoveries that should be shared for the common good. With the
"stacking" - tactical purchase - of patents by corporations, the
terrain of medical and agricultural research is quickly being carved
up and fenced off. Ideas are no longer shared across the boundaries of
different research groups.

History tells another story

Many of today s developed countries - ironically now the strongest
advocates of tighter intellectual property rights themselves - had
loose rules when they were setting up their national industries,
changing their tune only after they became technology
exporters. Canada and Italy had no trouble attracting foreign
investors even when they lacked patent protection. In Switzerland in
1883, a leading textile manufacturer defended loose laws, saying
"Swiss industrial development was fostered by the absence of patent
protection. If [it] had been in effect, neither the textile industry
nor the machine-building industry . . . would have flourished as they
did."

Empirical evidence shows no clear link

Despite the fierce
defence of the need for intellectual property rights in new
technologies, there is no conclusive evidence to back it up. Do
tighter intellectual property rights increase trade in
knowledge-intensive goods?  Unclear. A 1999 World Bank study examining
the experience of more than 80 countries found that the effect of
intellectual property rights on trade flows in high-tech goods was
insignificant. Do tighter intellectual property rights increase
foreign direct investment in high-tech goods? Studies say yes for
pharmaceuticals - along with higher prices - but for other knowledge goods
foreign direct investment usually depends on market size,
technological infrastructure and macroeconomic policy. Do tighter
intellectual property rights spur multinational corporations to carry
out in-country research and development? Apparently not: studies have
found that competitive markets are the biggest influence on research
and development, not patents. All this evidence is inconclusive - but
while the jury is still out, how can the judge decide?

There is living proof of successful alternatives

Alternative ways of innovating are alive - and doing very well. The
Internet is testament to the power of cooperative, decentralized
approaches to solving problems. Rejecting the tight control over
software given by copyright, a reverse movement has been launched
- "copyleft" , turning standard practice on its head. Rather than guarding
the source codes to programmes, software developers allow users to
view, modify and innovate with them - as long as they keep the new codes
open too. The result? Arguably the best software around. Apache, a Web
server developed communally by programmers in their spare time, is one
of the most reliable and up-to-date products available - and is
installed on 50% of publicly accessible Web servers. Its no- secrets
policy makes it an ideal tool for teaching and experimenting in
programming.

Source: Gerster 1998; Fink and Braga 1999; Leonard 1997; GRAIN 1998;
UNCTAD 1997.

-----------------
UNDP, United Nations Development Program,  Human Development Report
1999 , Oxford University Press, 1999, chapter 2, page 73, Box 2.9.
http://www.undp.org/hdro/index2.html

Chapter 2 : http://www.undp.org/hdro/Chapter2.pdf


--------

This is a must addition to Freepatents, in my opinion.


Good reading folks

Bernard

P.S.
  For those interested, there is a lot of material about life sciences
and all the dirty tricks of transgenic organisms.
  The life science industry is in the process of building a situation
where the kind of network effects that software editors rely on
to maintain monopoly will also apply to seeds. One interesting
techniques is to promote seeds that require technical triggers,
that only the manufacturer can sell (patent, of course).

 Bernard.Lang@inria.fr             ,_  /\o    \o/    Tel  +33 (1) 3963 5644
 http://pauillac.inria.fr/~lang/  ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^  Fax  +33 (1) 3963 5469
             INRIA / B.P. 105 / 78153 Le Chesnay CEDEX / France
          Je n'exprime que mon opinion - I express only my opinion
                  CAGED BEHIND WINDOWS or FREE WITH LINUX
===============
PPP. SSS.

 Avec mes excuses pour ce texte en Anglais, une partie de mes
destinataire est internationale, et comme mes citations sont en
anglais ...





