[pp.int.general] Copenhagen, our turn to dive into

[Reinier Bakels]

>
>    Patents are a problem, but probably not as much as trade secrets.
>
> These are very different issues.  Patents are created by statute,
> so it is easy to change the policy, given political will.
>
> But trade secrets are not created by statute.  A company's management
> does not necessarily even know about its trade secrets.
>
> Since these issues are very different, it is better not to mix them up.
>
>    Western held copyrights also make it significantly more difficult for
>    third world academics accessing proper education.
>
> That is true, but it is a totally different kind of issue:
> it affects education rather than industrial production.
>
For developing nations, in many fields of technology "capacity building" is 
an issue. I found out that this term is generally used for a broad range of 
activity. It is definitely not limited to (legal) "technology transfer", but 
it includes also education, and the creation of local organisations in 
lesser developed countries. Only patent fanatics associated patents with 
"technology transfer". But 1) access to a patent database is not enough 2) 
perhaps much more important: many technologies just aren't covered by 
patent. They may be trade secrets. Or they may even be open - but still not 
really available due to edicational, organisational or financial reasons.

Is this a PP issue? Only in a limited sense, perhaps to argue that patents 
are NO help and probably even detrimental - if if companies argue "we only 
make the tremendous investments needed to develop climate adaptation and 
mitigation technology if we are backed by strong patents". They actually 
mean: "Dear politician, because you are so concerned of global warming, we 
are prepared to let you pay AS MUCH AS POSSIBLE for that". If someone is 
afraid, he is prepared to may more. Patents are legalised extortion.

reinier