Wen 丨 Zhang is it
This article continues to delve into intellectual property issues and explore the problems, and we must first have a scientific attitude.
Well, a lot of people have done a lot about what science is.
In short, we do not say that science must be the truth, but that at least science pursues something of universal necessity.
That is, at the very least, we must have a scientific attitude, to know what we are pursuing, to pursue the universal necessity of theory, not to talk about it.
Then when we discuss intellectual property issues, we should at least uphold this attitude.
For example, one of the most common views on intellectual property is that without the protection of intellectual property, the creators of knowledge will not make money, will have no incentive to continue to engage in creation, and society will lose.
For example, I recently read a book on intellectual property law, which introduced the development of the patent system and wrote:
From the history of the development of the patent system, it can be seen that whether it is the Patent Law of 1474 in Venice or the Monopoly Law of 1624 in England, or the U.S. Constitution and Patent Law, the interests of inventors are protected. The principle of the patent system as an incentive mechanism is to give inventors the exclusive right to use for a certain period of time, so that they can obtain economic returns from their own genius inventions, and to ensure the lasting burning of the genius fire with the salary of profits, so as to ensure that human intellectual creation can benefit society in a sustainable form.
To put it simply, intellectual property rights, including the patent system, are an incentive mechanism, and it is a more beneficial behavior for society to let knowledge creators make more money, and it is to benefit society.
This view can also be said to be the cornerstone of the entire intellectual property issue, and it can also be said to be a "consensus".
But from a scientific point of view, with a scientific attitude, we need to seriously consider whether this "consensus" has undergone rigorous logical argumentation.
At least in my limited reading, the basic consensus of opinions, papers, and writings in favor of intellectual property is directly given, directly told to you, and you believe it.
Usually we don't see any rigorous arguments and reasoning, and perhaps in the eyes of these authors, does this still need to be said? Isn't that obvious truth and common sense? Still need crap?
You know, common sense is sometimes not necessarily true, as the long-dominant Ptolemaic geocentric said.
Intellectual property rights and patents can enable creators of knowledge to make more money, live better, and thus create more for the benefit of society.
If we consider this view as an argument, then this argument can easily find counterexamples.
I'll try to cite two, and readers can add some to the comments section if they're interested, so that I can organize and publish them as material to add later.
The first example, Van Gogh.
Vincent Willem van Gogh (30 March 1853 – 29 July 1890)
Dutch post-impressionist painters, representative works include starry sky, self-portrait series, sunflower series and so on.
Now we all know van Gogh's name, and we know that his paintings are valuable, and the most expensive painting, Doctor Gachet, sold for more than $80 million.
But many people may not know that during Van Gogh's lifetime, in his limited life, he sold only one painting, The Red Vineyard, which was probably 400 francs.
A great artist who is recognized and deeply influenced the art of the twentieth century, he sold only one work during his lifetime, and he lived his whole life in poverty, disease and misery.
But in this way, in his short 37-year-old life, Van Gogh painted 864 oil paintings, 1037 drawings, and 150 watercolors. In total, there are more than 2100 works.
It is clear that Van Gogh's creative ability and creative enthusiasm were not overwhelmed by poverty and suffering. This exuberant creative vitality has nothing to do with more money and less money.
Of course, you can assume that if Van Gogh had lived a better and richer life, he might have had more works.
This assumption cannot be refuted, and it is indeed possible.
But a richer, more prosperous van gogh, is his work still the same Van Gogh as it is today?
In van Gogh's case, I mean to say that there is a certain argument for intellectual property that it is necessary for knowledge creators to make money and live better, that they are more creative, which cannot be said to be completely wrong, but it is not entirely correct.
There is no universal necessity, it is merely a guess. Van Gogh is a counterexample.
Another example is Marie Curie.
Marie Curie (7 November 1867 – 4 July 1934)
Famous French scientist of Polish origin, physicist and chemist.
Marie Curie, this is the positive example of our textbooks.
In 1903, she and her husband were awarded the Nobel Prize in Physics for their outstanding contributions to radioactivity research. Just 8 years later, Marie Curie was again awarded the Nobel Prize in Chemistry for separating radium.
She thus became the first person in the world to win the Nobel Prize twice.
This is a story we are familiar with, and what we are not familiar with is that after Marie Curie successfully refined "radium", she was advised to apply for a patent with the government so that she could obtain a steady stream of income and improve the living conditions of her family.
However, Marie Curie refused, saying:
That is contrary to the spirit of science, the results of scientists' research should be published publicly, and others should develop them, and there should be no restrictions. Besides, radium is good for the patient, and I shouldn't use it for profit.
Marie Curie not only did not patent the method of refining pure radium, but also made it public, which greatly promoted the development of radiochemistry.
Marie Curie spent most of her life in poverty, and the extraction of radium was done under very rudimentary conditions.
Marie Curie lived in a time when the patent system already had clear rules to follow. But she refused to patent any of her inventions, and used both the Nobel Prize and its prize money for later research.
Marie Curie is an example, and I cite her example not to encourage scientists to conduct research in poverty, as if only poverty can reflect its spirit and pursuit.
Not at all, hope not to misunderstand.
What I want to say is still that it is impossible to say that there are patents and the protection of intellectual property rights in order to motivate knowledge creators to create.
In art there is Van Gogh, in science there is Marie Curie. At the very least, there are counterexamples to this argument.
If not strictly speaking, a counterexample is sufficient for the falsification of a theory.
Well, here I have found two out, is it a kind of falsification of this basic argument in support of intellectual property?
Published: December 2, 2021