China has an intellectual property rights (IPR) campaign ongoing that I believe is very ill-advised. As an entrepot, Hong Kong excels by being an honest broker for China. What China wants, Hong Kong is delighted to serve its most important customer. Now Hong Kong too seems to be getting on the IPR bandwagon. If the United States is any indication of where IPR goes, then Hong Kong is headed toward disaster.
Let's go back to the beginning. Hong Kong and USA were formed at the same time by the same people: laissez faire adepts on the fringes of Britannia, the world's sole superpower at the time. In USA it was outright rebellion, in Hong Kong, it was a matter of necessity. Short of suitably English civil servants, the Crown appointed Scotsmen to run the Island the Emperor ceded to the Crown. Those Scotsmen were heirs to a philosophy regnant in the new USA, ancient ideas communicated by Moslems to the Spanish Scholastics, up to the French philosophes, and over to Scotland. That philosophy flowered in the USA and Hong Kong, Holland and Switzerland, about the same time and eventually a variant in Singapore a century or so later.
Now this philosophy is not "British" indeed it never took hold in the UK. It is not "Chinese" either. Since it is based on freedom, it is universal. Hong Kong is what Aquinas calls an "accident." The right people at the right place at the right time with the right idea. Over time, the United States drifted away from its original moorings while Hong Kong has remained fast.
Why did Hong Kong work? In history, when there is too much government chaos follows, and people escape to anarchy, where there is order out of chaos. Hong Kong is an example of order out of chaos.
In the USA IPR was introduced over the objections of Americans by that defender of the small guy, Thos. Jefferson He was the first patent examiner of the USA. Of course, the revolutionaries in USA wanted nothing to do with the rotten system of patents and copyrights and trademarks from the old country, which benefitted the rich and powerful. Thos. Jefferson lobbied for a difference in USA constitutional law that he presumed would be a good thing, and that is in USA patents would be issued to teh inventor as opposed to Europe, which is first to patent. Theoretically this shift would be revolutionary, giving power to the small independent inventor. In practice it has been a mess, to the point where the recent change in USA law now has the USA laws mimicking the hated European system.
What Thos. Jefferson missed was the inherent flow in "intellectual property rights" and that is it depends on violence to maintain. Fifth parties must be taxed by fourth parties to pay third parties to enforce rules on second parties who may have infringed on first parties putative rights. In practice people adapt to fighting each other over "intellectual property" instead of building market by serving customers. The difference is profound, and we can go through USA industry by USA industry and see where IPR reigns, our industry is dying, where it is no where to be found, we thrive.
Fashion and architecture we excel, medicine and automobiles we are falling behind.
While an absence of intellectual property rights regime is natural so needs not be argued for, arguments against IPR are widely available. I can send some wonderful .pdfs to anyone interested, and I recommend the book listed here as a start.
But the Chinese need no argument, because in their historical experience they have seen the effects of such control. The Han and Tang dynasties were relatively free, creativity and invention flourished. Under the Yuan and Qing, the benefits of invention went to the conquerers. Chinese invention suffered. Yet art and literature was not held back, so that flourished in spite of the occupation.
Under the Communists, by virtue of their de facto freedom, China is now flourishing again. It is clear the leadership has no interest in being the factory floor and back room for Nike and Tiffany, China desires to be Nike and Tiffany. But must not confuse cause and effect. It is not IPR that makes those companies great, it is marketing. I would urge China to eschew IPR.
IPR is contrary to Hong Kong DNA. Sure, Hong Kong should become the world center in licensing and managing IPR where ever it rears its ugly head. Why not? And sure, protect your brands, etc when selling into an IPR regime. But for Hong Kong itself, abjure all IPR. Stay the best marketers and managers in the world. Never let violence be the basis for law. Stay free!
Hong Kong is the last best hope for all people who desire peace and prosperity. It is what Ireland was to Western Christianity, when all was looking dark the culture had receded to a few monasteries in Ireland, from which it returned.
There should at least be a robust conversation about a change that has sound profound effects. if the people of Hong Kong were to study IPR in the USA closely, they would find no more clear and present danger to their independence, peace and prosperity. Watch out! Regardez! Be afraid, be very afraid!
Feel free to forward this by email to three of your friends.
Let's go back to the beginning. Hong Kong and USA were formed at the same time by the same people: laissez faire adepts on the fringes of Britannia, the world's sole superpower at the time. In USA it was outright rebellion, in Hong Kong, it was a matter of necessity. Short of suitably English civil servants, the Crown appointed Scotsmen to run the Island the Emperor ceded to the Crown. Those Scotsmen were heirs to a philosophy regnant in the new USA, ancient ideas communicated by Moslems to the Spanish Scholastics, up to the French philosophes, and over to Scotland. That philosophy flowered in the USA and Hong Kong, Holland and Switzerland, about the same time and eventually a variant in Singapore a century or so later.
Now this philosophy is not "British" indeed it never took hold in the UK. It is not "Chinese" either. Since it is based on freedom, it is universal. Hong Kong is what Aquinas calls an "accident." The right people at the right place at the right time with the right idea. Over time, the United States drifted away from its original moorings while Hong Kong has remained fast.
Why did Hong Kong work? In history, when there is too much government chaos follows, and people escape to anarchy, where there is order out of chaos. Hong Kong is an example of order out of chaos.
In the USA IPR was introduced over the objections of Americans by that defender of the small guy, Thos. Jefferson He was the first patent examiner of the USA. Of course, the revolutionaries in USA wanted nothing to do with the rotten system of patents and copyrights and trademarks from the old country, which benefitted the rich and powerful. Thos. Jefferson lobbied for a difference in USA constitutional law that he presumed would be a good thing, and that is in USA patents would be issued to teh inventor as opposed to Europe, which is first to patent. Theoretically this shift would be revolutionary, giving power to the small independent inventor. In practice it has been a mess, to the point where the recent change in USA law now has the USA laws mimicking the hated European system.
What Thos. Jefferson missed was the inherent flow in "intellectual property rights" and that is it depends on violence to maintain. Fifth parties must be taxed by fourth parties to pay third parties to enforce rules on second parties who may have infringed on first parties putative rights. In practice people adapt to fighting each other over "intellectual property" instead of building market by serving customers. The difference is profound, and we can go through USA industry by USA industry and see where IPR reigns, our industry is dying, where it is no where to be found, we thrive.
Fashion and architecture we excel, medicine and automobiles we are falling behind.
While an absence of intellectual property rights regime is natural so needs not be argued for, arguments against IPR are widely available. I can send some wonderful .pdfs to anyone interested, and I recommend the book listed here as a start.
But the Chinese need no argument, because in their historical experience they have seen the effects of such control. The Han and Tang dynasties were relatively free, creativity and invention flourished. Under the Yuan and Qing, the benefits of invention went to the conquerers. Chinese invention suffered. Yet art and literature was not held back, so that flourished in spite of the occupation.
Under the Communists, by virtue of their de facto freedom, China is now flourishing again. It is clear the leadership has no interest in being the factory floor and back room for Nike and Tiffany, China desires to be Nike and Tiffany. But must not confuse cause and effect. It is not IPR that makes those companies great, it is marketing. I would urge China to eschew IPR.
IPR is contrary to Hong Kong DNA. Sure, Hong Kong should become the world center in licensing and managing IPR where ever it rears its ugly head. Why not? And sure, protect your brands, etc when selling into an IPR regime. But for Hong Kong itself, abjure all IPR. Stay the best marketers and managers in the world. Never let violence be the basis for law. Stay free!
Hong Kong is the last best hope for all people who desire peace and prosperity. It is what Ireland was to Western Christianity, when all was looking dark the culture had receded to a few monasteries in Ireland, from which it returned.
There should at least be a robust conversation about a change that has sound profound effects. if the people of Hong Kong were to study IPR in the USA closely, they would find no more clear and present danger to their independence, peace and prosperity. Watch out! Regardez! Be afraid, be very afraid!
Feel free to forward this by email to three of your friends.
0 comments:
Post a Comment