[PEN-L:665] Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Nature bites back

[boddhisatva <kbevans@xxxxxxxxx>]

		C. Perelman,


	My point was that we - in our *modern* economy - could learn the
lesson that commerce need not be synonymous with hostility.  I wasn't
talking about relations *between* modes of production, but *within* the
modern (or future) mode of production.  It was a separate argument.


	For that matter I don't think that it is at all impossible to have
the same kind of positive economic relationships between modes of
production.  Certainly the more modern mode of production will start
undermining the old but I don't see this as undesirable, necessarily.
The truth is that people like Coca-Cola and movies.


	My point was that people in more traditional economies have not,
historically, been brought in to the more modern economy but simply
bulldozered by them.  My further point is that such bulldozering is not
necessary - even while modernization and industrialization is.  You are
quite right to point out that capitalism undermines the positive effects
of economic interaction - creating alienation.  All I suggest is that
progressive economists not take alienation to be part and parcel of a
modern, industrial economy.  An industrial economy that is more advanced
than capitalism could be far less alienating - even to the point of being
focused on building those bonds of mutual obligation.


	My point about patents is probably clearest with Coca-Cola.  There
is really scant difference between Coca-Cola and other colas.  As I
understand it, Coke's secret formula is a process patent.  You could
produce a drink that was effectively identical to Coke another way and
people get very close even now.  Virgin Cola is not an attempt to sell a
better mousetrap so much as an attempt to divert some of the flow of
capital away from Coca-Cola by creating an alternative brand.


	As far as the Neem goes, the tree is all but moot.  As I said in a
previous post, the patents will probably be on a process and use basis.
If a firm creates a way to artificially synthesize a substance found in a
plant, I see no reason they shouldn't be able to patent the process.  The
question is how broad the patent should be.  Should it be a patent on all
artificial Neem oil or only the Neem oil made in a particular fashion?
This is really pretty standard legal stuff, though.  As for patenting the
entire Neem tree.  It seems absolutely absurd to me.  Effectively it would
be like patenting New Jersey and them claiming all the inventions of
Edison and every drug the great pharmaceutical concerns like Merck ever
came up with.  However, when it comes to a particular process for creating
a substance derived from the Neem tree or a specific use for a specific
Neem substance, I see no particular problem with it.


	If a use was commonplace before the patent, an accused infringer
would just make the argument that the use was in the public domain and the
patent was worthless.  Furthermore, India need not recognize these patents
if Western countries over-reach.  Patents are really a protection inside
borders.  Between countries enforcement requires the political will for a
trade sanction - especially between countries like India and the U.S..


	Copyrights and patents are this nice, clear assertion of property
rights and so they are simple to attack.  I don't think they are what make
the capitalist clock tick, however.


	
	peace