The entry above was cited from Article 1, Section 8, Clause 8, of the United States Constitution, as mandated by the Patent Act of 1952. This is the part of common law that acts as the header for all formal and non-formal debates upon the rights to patenting. Where in all debates come pros and cons, I can’t help but to feel the itch to break each one down to fragments for a better understanding of the situation and issue.

Now when speaking of patents, I presume that the vast majority would beg to propose. Because nonetheless, you must admit that the very idea of patenting itself is indeed tres seductive for the naked eye. Let’s say, after spending 24 hours 7 days a week in a laboratory trying to discover the next best thing in pharmaceutical history, who in their right minds wouldn’t want legal acknowledgement? Or maybe, after spending 24 hours 7 days a week in a remote Indonesian village, who in their right minds wouldn’t want royalties knocking on their door each time the next best scientist or inventor comes and cites your discovery of a revolutionary batik that is made from unbreakable strands of cloth? All statements mentioned above is made just to give you a fundamental understanding on how the society perceives patent rights. Society as of now believes that with patenting comes innovation. Society believes that by having patents erected -especially with the alluring pot of money and royalties waiting over the rainbow- innovation and further research and development will be triggered to occur. Thus creating further revolutions in whichever industry the patent was designated for. The society also is keen in believing that in the particular cases of tradition and folklore, patents would solidify a nation of its national identity. Triggering pride to emerge from the hearts of teens and young ones alike, who as of now really could care less about Tari Piring and what not.

But I beg to differ. Why? Because the majority who perceive patenting as an incentive towards innovation, do not actually understand the patenting system itself. The beurocracy that goes into putting one’s name on a discovery. The existence of underground “thefts” or formally known as Patent Trolls, that create generic renditions of the original invention with a cheaper price; the existence of these trolls would systematically reduce government revenue in certain departments, causing financial allocation towards research and development of the invention or discovery to be hindered. Therefore in the end, the initial goal of “innovation” is not reached. Because these Patent Trolls are not the ones who conduct the research and development, rather it is the government themselves who do, because of patenting. By having no sufficient income, the government would fail to innovate; leaving the particular industry to whither below the bridge where trolls rule to take what is legally not theirs, and become the highly-demanded “heroes” who sell equally qualifiable substitutes of patented products that sell by a higher price. The higher price in which does not exist because patented products are better in quality, but rather because these patented products are patented in the first place. So I believe that by diminishing patent rights, intellectuality would be up for grabs. By having no patents guarding a certain invention, independent studies done by scientists and researchers alike would commence. Because as of now, any form of research & development concerning a patented product is illegal by law, unless they obtain governmental permission to do so. Permission equals money. Money equals less independent studies. Less independent studies equal less innovation. Also to the point of traditions and national identity; I will show you that patenting is not the answer. I will show you how legal acknowledgment, does not equal social acceptance. Patenting would not create national pride, because I firmly believe that pride comes before theft, not after.

To paint you a prettier picture, I’ve divided my thoughts on patent rights according to what aspects are at stake. First and foremost, on the argument of national identity and legal acknowledgment; issues concerned here namely would be that of the Indonesia-Malaysia batik conflict. And to wrap up, I will elaborate on how innovation would in time cease to exist with patent rights still in effect; this particular point regards the issues occurring in the pharmaceutical industry and the software and technology department.

National identity. When it comes to national pride over traditions and culture, what is needed is not legal acknowledgement. We do not need the government to protect any form of cultural practices through patent rights under the constitution cited earlier. What is important to be done, is to solidify our stance as a nation, by further promoting our cultures, not cowardly hiding from international competition with the help of Patentman the superhero. Why? Because you must consider the fact that competition coming from countries all over the globe is inevitable. But by having patent rights diminished, other countries would be free to distribute one nation’s culture, therefore systematically promoting it for the nation. But then one would think, if other nations do the promoting for us, then wont they get the credit, not us? That, is an assumption. Need proof? An example would be in the case of the batik tug of war between Indonesia and Malaysia. Although Malaysia now has officially obtained legal patent rights over batik, the majority of people from across the globe do not flock to Malaysia to get their international hands on these beautifully designed cloths. What they do is in fact still travel to Jogja and to other Indonesian tourist destinations to buy batiks. Why? Because since the very beginning, even before the international lawsuit ever started, Indonesia has been socially excepted by the international world as the original home of batik.

“Batik has been both an art and a craft for centuries. In Java, Indonesia, batik is part of an ancient tradition, and some of the finest batik cloth in the world is still made there.” -Batik, Wikipedia

Therefore proof is obtained that actually legal protection is not needed in this situation; that what is quintessential is not governmental acknowledgment, rather it is social even Wikipedia acknowledgment, in which Indonesia has successfully achieved. Not to mention that erecting patents themselves isn’t an easy task, nor is it in anyway cheap. The beauracracy needed is mind boggling, and also the money needed is jaw dropping. So I stand firm in saying that rather than allocating great amounts of money to pay the government to lawfully protect culture, we should re-allocate the money towards creating an incentive for local traditional workers to further promote the creation and innovation of such traditional and cultural products or practices.

Concerning patent’s role in the software and technology world, innovation would be suppressed with patent rights existing. Now when one product is patented, the law firmly states that any form of use of these products must go through certain beuracratical procedures in order to obtain permission. In cases like technology and software, beuracracy is nonsense. Technology grows fast and newer and more modern software emerge every day, therefore just the idea of taking time to go through beuracracy to patent a certain technological product is unreasonable. Because this would slow down the process of innovation itself. In certain cases where the patented products are of high value, legal permission to use these products in research could take up to 20 years. The primary benefit of protecting computer software through the patent system is the strength of protection provided by the patent laws. An owner of a patent may prevent all others from making, using, or selling the patented invention. In connection with software, an issued patent may prevent others from utilizing a certain algorithm (such as the GIF image compression algorithm) without permission, or may prevent others from creating software programs that perform a function in a certain way (such as Compton's withdrawn patent that allegedly prevented all others from performing certain types of multimedia database queries). Patents are often described as a grant of a limited monopoly in exchange for an element of disclosure or public use. Free Software is an example of full disclosure of the software and source code with specific freedoms granted to all users of that software. So rather than focusing on maximizing the rewards for previously authored software, those opposed to software patenting are more concerned with future software development, like myself.
Now concerning the pharmaceutical industry, let’s bring up an example like AIDS medicines. With my earlier elaborations, we have solidified our understanding on how patenting would create a monopolized environment of more expensive products. Now with the issue of AIDS at hand, I believe that patenting a drug to supposedly help an AIDS patient, would be nonsense, moreover inhumane. Furthermore regarding how patenting would create too much hustle and bustle for the medical world. When creating a patent, competitor’s are still free to write a lawsuit against that patent, and beg to say that the patent is invalid because of certain reasons. Now with all that buzz happening in courts, we are forgetting the actual people we initially pledged to serve. These AIDS patients and other patients of chronic diseases need help, and fast. So then there wouldn’t be a need for patenting anymore, when the need for medication is dire, and when the time left to live is ticking. Not just ticking for their lives but also ticking for innovation, because if you haven’t noticed by now, a cure for AIDS has yet to be discovered; and with patents blocking research and development from actually discovering it, I don’t believe the day will come, or at least soon enough.

In the end, patent still is proven to be unneeded. First of all, because the government’s initial goal to create patent laws was so innovation would be triggered. But what they don’t realize is that patents itself hinders innovation to occur. Because with patents, not all parties are free to research and develop. Especially with the issue of patent trolls at hand, it is actually better that all people become trolls ad no one become stake holders, in order for true innovation to commence. Also on current issues concerning batik. Facts have proven to us that Malaysia robbing Indonesia is not a problem, because what is important is social acceptance, not lawful acceptance. Therefore yet again patents is not needed. Toodles :D