Slashdot Mirror
Coffee and Intellectual Property
cervesaebraciator writes "A 'Coffee Branding Workshop,' sponsored by the World Intellectual Property Organization, was held recently in Arusha City, at which the Director General of the Tanzania Coffee Board presented a paper titled 'Supporting the Coffee Sector with added Value Products Through Intellectual Property and Branding.' The paper encouraged the use of intellectual property claims, including trademarks, copyrights, patents, and designs, as sources of income which can be used to support agriculture in Africa. The Director General claimed that '[Intellectual property rights] are the basis for today's knowledge based economy and international competitiveness.' This is no doubt related to a broader effort to advance western style intellectual property in Africa through claims of the benefits it offers agriculture. Promoting western style intellectual property law as a means of third world development is a popular strategy for WIPO, the only branch of the UN to have significant wealth deriving from contributions independent of Member States. On a related note of interest to Slashdotters, there is a history of tension between WIPO advocates and FOSS advocates." I hope they take advantage of the marketing possibilities offered by civet-processed coffee.
There is NO SUCH THING as "intellectual property". It's a farce. I, for one, am looking forward to a left-leaning "creative commons" Star Trek like world where profit means little, and the freedy people (Ferengi) are forbidden interlopers.
Whether or not you can extract (and I choose that word deliberately) wealth from a nation through the fiction we call "intellectual property" has nothing to do with the long-term viability of that concept.
When people starve to death because Monsanto won't let them grow patented plants, we need to put the bastards up against the wall.
When people starve to death because Goldman Sachs has cornered the Red Spring Wheat market, we need to put the bastards up against the wall.
When people die of malaria because Novartis would rather profit than save lives, we need to put the bastards up against the wall.
"Intellectual property" literally means nothing more than "we value dollars over your life". Anyone using that as a defense for their actions counts as nothing short of a race traitor - To the human race.
The sooner We The People stop putting up with this shit, the sooner we can get back to improving our world rather than making sure the "right" people get paid for improvements 20 years ago.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kopi_Luwak
the ultimate real world "emperor's new clothes" joke
1. the dutch colonists didn't let the indonesian farmers enjoy their own coffee crop (consider them lucky, the dutch committed genocide to protect their nutmeg trade: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Banda_Islands#Massacre_of_the_Bandanese ). the farmers knew jungle civet cats raided the crops and ate coffee beans and shat them out mostly undigested. so, to enjoy coffee, the farmers processed cat shit to take the coffee beans out and brew coffee
cut to: clueless westerners, seeing locals drinking cat shit coffee, and thinking this is some exotic folkloric way to enhance coffee taste, start clamoring for this "authentic" way to enjoy coffee. add some marketing mumbo jumbo bullshit (i mean, catshit) about the civet cat digestive enzymes enhancing taste, and you have the birth of the world's most expensive coffee
rich morons deserve to fooled and fleeced of their money
in other words, i support the use of intellectual property law by poor states against the assholes who made up this lame legal framework. intellectual property law is of course a joke. and those who created it should, and shall, suffer for foisting this bullshit on the world
be careful what you create, western legal trolls. it has a way of coming back to bite you in the ass (out of which comes delicious coffee)
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
There’s no link to the paper, but that’s not what the linked article says. It says that they’re pushing an initiative to benefit African agriculture through IP and branding. Copyrights, patents, and designs are mentioned only in the context of the presenter explaining to the audience what “intellectual property” even means. (The fact that he felt the need to do that is telling.)
I suspect the main thrust would be developing geographical indicator branding, like appellations d'origine contrôlée or Cornish pasties; the article mentions Ethiopia’s success in this regard.
MEH!
Civet Coffee is so fifteen-seconds-ago. the latest and greatest thing is Elephant Coffee!
Extra value because elephants are likely to become extinct any second now due to excessive poaching for ivory.
Visit CryptoGnome in his home.
I patent water distributed in/consumed from a handheld device.
Although not directly related to coffee, there is a very interesting TED talk from Jojanna Blakley that touches this exact point. She compares the fashion industry, in which there are pratically no copyright law or intellectual property, to the entertainment industry where this is heavily overblown. Link: http://www.ted.com/talks/johanna_blakley_lessons_from_fashion_s_free_culture.html
If I clone myself, can I call it a thread?
If a girl winks to us, can I call it a race condition?
Unlikely, now that elephants have coffee. They'll be way to fast for the poachers.
When I hear crap like that I am reminded that "If fleas could talk, they would tell you how they benefit dogs."
Except there were more medicinal compounds patented BEFORE patents were introduced.
http://levine.sscnet.ucla.edu/papers/ip.ch.9.m1004.pdf
And in Italy there was a measurable slowdown in development JUST AFTER INTRODUCTION of patents for medicines. Profits went up, new drugs went down. They simply didn't have to try so hard to compete.
Also, a large part of the medications used today originated at publicly funded universities. The pharmaceutical companies' contribution is often to change a tiny bit, like the delivery mechanism, and then fight and bribe tooth and nail to get their own patented variety approved by the governments and the competitors' versions stalled.
There wouldn't be over 1200 registered pharmaceutical lobbyists in Washington if they didn't get even more return for that investment.
I used to use a cough decongestant made by a handful of pharmacists, who had made it for about two generations. Then came a big company and demanded a ban - it ate part of their market share in certain areas. It got banned because the combination of two ingredients in a specific ratio was "untested" - despite having been sold for well near 40 years with no documented ill effects, and sold in almost, but not quite, the same ratio by the big pharma company. It wasn't a consumer concern, it wasn't an FDA concern - it got pushed by a single company who wanted to sell their product.
Yes, sure, they're contributing... To my hatred of them and everything they stand for. I refuse to buy stock in any pharmaceutical company, no matter whether it's more profitable. Cause unlike them, I have scruples.
I have scruples.
You should see your pharmacist, I hear these days there's a cream for that.
Visit CryptoGnome in his home.
I'm planning on bypassing the civet cats and just doing the job myself.
Any takers for beta-testing?
"I've got more toys than Teruhisa Kitahara."
IP is not the reason for starvation. While IP is in no way a good thing (applying rules used for scarce goods doesn't work when the goods are not scarce) it is government practices that create starvation. From corrupt African countries refusing to distribute aid to their people to western countries who pay people not to farm and actively try to maintain high food prices for their farmers. Those policies are the reason for starvation, not Monsanto's patented crops.
Taxation is legalized theft, no more, no less.
Also, a large part of the medications used today originated at publicly funded universities.
And many of these universities patent and license their work as well. Revenue from these licenses help fund medical/pharma research and the university in general.
For example the University of California is quite aggressive regarding patenting and licensing discoveries. Half of the revenue goes to the general UC budget, a quarter to the department where the discovery originated and a quarter to the employees who made the discovery.
BTW, the UC licensing program gives breaks to small local companies.
IP in this context means WESTERN LAWYERS sucking the life out of impoverished African agriculturalists.
That is not true, IP can protect the smaller and independent coffee growers. For example IP was used to protect the small coffee growers in Kona, Hawaii. Prior to their use of IP to protect the "Kona" brand, Kona blends from some major distributors contained very little Kona sourced beans. Not only did this reduce the sales of the Kona growers, diminish their brand by associating it with an inferior experience, but it was deceptive to consumers. I learned of this by sitting next to such a grower on a flight to Hawaii. In other words I am offering the perspective of a small and independent coffee grower.
All IP is not created equal. Here they are simply talking about trademarking by regions. Why? Because of vanilla. Madagascar vanilla was recognized as the best in the world. But Madagascar farmers got like 10 cents per pod, while the pods sell in NY for 50 dollars a pod (made up numbers, but you get the point). So the farmers create a geographical indicator (GI) for Madagascar vanilla, certify their product, and now make 25 dollars per pod.
Coffee is just following this model, so you can market Zimbabwe coffee and Ghana coffee and wherever else and the farmers get to keep a greater share of the profits. Honestly I don't see how this is anything but good - poor farmers keep more of the market value of their product.
When you hear the word IP, don't foam at the mouth picturing Simon Legree twirling his mustache. Stop, think, and listen. IP is just a tool, it can be used for good or ill.
Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on lunch.
I'm reading Michael Porter's "Competitive Strategy". Apparently it's the manager's bible.
/. and that IP is discussed vigorously here. My stance on IP is one with a good deal of skepticism. IP is derived form an intellect which always belongs to a person. I reject the concept of collective intellect whereby a business believes it nourishes and/or owns it.
Porter advocates that competition to be the best is not a viable path to follow. Instead value must be created, the value chain must be enforced and the influences concerning 1) threats of competition, 2) threats of substitution, 3) bargaining power of customers and 4) bargaining power of suppliers must be managed well. Porter mentions patents and IP as factors but, of course, takes no political position.
So, the most important issue here is that it's actually good that coffee producers actively consider competitive strategy. It should result in a more balanced coffee market whereby 1) we value and pay more for it and 2) the value chain of producing countries is enforced.
It remains to be seen whether the distribution of this newly created wealth will be undertaken fairly.
Whether IP is good or bad is besides the point. It's merely a factor in developing and managing a business strategy. IP is available to any body or organisation in equal quantities.
I also realise I'm on
I hadn't the slightest objection to his spending his time planning massacres for the bourgeoisie... (P.G. Wodehouse)
That is not what is being proposed, what you have is a slippery slope argument (AKA, logical fallacy). Soooo, what's your solution to the real problem? - By that I mean, if I spend millions advertising "Fair Trade coffee" why should someone who has not spent a penny be able to use my trademark to sell coffee produced by child slaves? How about medical supplies? The problem in Africa with medical supplies is not generic medicine that actually works, it's FAKE medicine in branded packaging, mainly imported from India and China, ie: what could possibly go wrong if a middleman fills the bags with tap water rather than saline solution?
A brand or trademark is basically the same as a signature, it uniquely identifies who to praise/blame. At the end of the day the only reason anyone copies other people's trademark/signature is because their own trademark/signature is worthless. Why is it worthless? - Could it be because they have not invested the effort required to make it worth something?
Do people who issue trademarks make bad decisions? Sure, I'm still pissed we allowed the Yanks to trademark "Ugg Boots" in the 90's when small Aussie businesses had been commonly advertising sheep skin boots as "Ugg Boots" for at least 20yrs. However poor decisions by themselves do not invalidate the basic premise that I have a "natural right"* to my mark as something that uniquely identifies who I am and what I do. The ingredients and service you get with my espresso in my (imaginary) cafe may be exactly the same thing as the guy next door, but that's not the point. The point (and the moral) is that you should not pretend to be someone or something that you are not, from a purely moral POV using someone else's trademark is clearly fraudulent behaviour.
* - Natural right: As in, a dog has a natural right (and urge) to mark a tree in a way that makes the owner of the mark crystal clear to all other dogs who visit that tree.
And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
I prefer Jamaica Blue Mountain ....
A large part of the issue BTW with coffee is the risk of IP claims that would create monopolies on traditional "origins".
For example I very much like the Caranavi Coffé of Bolivia, but it would probably be trivial to get a trademark in Europe for it without any connection to the region in Bolivia.
And then sooner or latter "profit"...
Now traditional "regions of origin" provide some protection for this, but it's difficult for emerging countries to handle this right.
Looking up "basmati trademark" and analysing the dispute around this between India and Pakistan is a good way to understand the nightmare this can generate....
But you're actually making part of our argument for us. There is no such thing as "intellectual property" and when people use the word they conflate a number of laws wanting us to think of them as similar when in fact they have almost nothing in common.
Copyright - automatic, lasts a long time, applies to execution of ideas only.
Patents - not automatic, lasts a relatively short time, applies to ideas themselves rather than to execution
Trademark - not automatic, lost if not defended, can last indefinitely - applies to neither ideas nor execution.
In fact trademarks are not a law of benefit to trademark holders at all (at least not in it's intention), it's intention is to be a consumer protection law - so that when you buy something you can trust it's the real thing (what you describe is a case for proper trademark enforcement which most FOSS people have no problem with whatsoever - indeed I've never met one who did).
These things are radically different sets of laws with completely different goals and implement in very different (often completely contradictory) manners. Trademarks can't be called a property by any reasonable measure and in fact unlike the others cannot be said to even enable market-forming, they are purely there to protect consumer's interests - not those of trademark HOLDERS but those of ordinary citizens. They are also highly restricted because they apply to words - so they don't get turned into a form of censorship. This is why a trademark is limited to a certain field of endeavour (a trademark on the name windows in computing cannot be enforced on companies that make glass panes to fit into holes in your wall or vice versa), and why they are lost if not defended and if (despite defending them) they become common-usage terminology (this is why Johnson and Johnson lost the trademark on "band-aid", "kleenex" was lost in the same way).
There is no way to lose your copyright before it expires. You can sue somebody for violating a patent even if a billion other people did it and you never sued any of them before.
See - these things are completely separate things and should be discussed and debated separately. When we discuss patent reform, throwing copyright into the discussion will only confuse the issue since they are almost entirely opposite in their structure. If we discuss trade-mark enforcement we have literally NOTHING to gain by conflating patent and copyright issues with that.
I live in Africa and I've lived through some of the problems you describe. I contracted malaria in Nigeria and know the fear of wondering whether the malaria tablets the doctor prescribed and the pharmacy sold me are actually the real thing or just repackaged aspirins. I'm in favor of strong trademark enforcement to prevent such things. At the same time I'm in favor of radical patent reform and possibly even abolishment.
I really hope my country remains firm and refuses to allow software patents forever, because that is a MAJOR industrial advantage for us. A US company cannot sue us for patent infringement (which every program in the world does) but we COULD sue them - and since they cannot then blackmail us - they leave us alone. We're one of the last countries where a software company doesn't have to compile a huge stockpile of patents just to survive.
Unicode killed the ASCII-art *