> In the course of research that I'm doing on alternatives to the patent
> system for producing medicines, I came across the following:
>
> And Chinese authorities during the Cultural Revolution promulgated the
> following popular saying: "Is it necessary for a steel worker to put his
> name on a steel ingot that he produces in the course of his duty? If
> not, why should a member of the intelligentsia enjoy the privilege of
> putting his name on what he produces?"
It is not about putting one's name on a product, but about monopoly rights of the seller of a product. The concept of "intellectual property" is a ruse, window-dressing designed to cover up the monopolistic nature of the practice which evokes bad vibes just about in everyone but the monopolist himself. It projects the warm and fuzzy image of an inventor and a producer reaping justly deserved rewards for his or her ingenuity and effort, which sails rather well among mental workers. In reality, the main beneficiaries of this system are the property rights holders, which seldom are those who actually produced the merchandise.
The main argument for "intellectual property rights" - that they promote innovation and progress - can easily be debunked by the fact that societies with little or no intellectual property rights were equally if no more innovative than those that do have strong intellectual property rights protection - as evidenced for example by the fact that the USSR that virtually had no intellectual property rights made initially a far greater progress in space exploration i.e. where innovation really matters than the US. That reversed only when US government started throwing more money on the space program, which by definition is antithetical to intellectual property rights (anything produced by government agencies cannot be copyrighted or patented).
In short, the whole notion of intellectual property rights is the Orwellian newspeak for the old well known monopolies, just as its intellectual mentor, neo-liberalism, is the newspeak term for the old well known fascism. The main principle of fascism, in the words of its champion Adolf Hitler, is "responsibility towards above, authority towards below." This also happens to be the modus operandi of the "neo-liberal" concept of ideal government.
Methinks that debating the concept of intellectual property rights is pretty pointless - like fighting windmills or smoke and mirror images. Engaging the ratfuckers in intellectual debates is pointless because they can hire more pundits and lawyers and produce more spin that we can even imagine. A much more effective way is kicking them in their balls i.e. profits. Thus, a more effective way of dealing with it is the practice of monopoly breaking, i.e. bootlegging and the promotion of bootlegged products. Offshore bootleggers do more to fight global monopoly capital than all political activists and protesters combined. An added benefit of fighting the monopoly capital this way is that it not only does not demand personal sacrifice from the participants, but it also offers instant rewards in the form of lower prices.
BTW, this list would be a far more useful tool for a social change if it provided practical hints how to subvert the global monopoly capital - i.e. how to avoid paying various premiums it imposes on us - instead of, or perhaps in addition to, spinning wheels on counterculture and theoretical. The practical hints on the draconian bankruptcy laws posted to this list are a good model. We need more of it - e.g. links to websites selling bootlegged products or containing advice how to avoid paying various premiums, interests, fees, taxes, etc. All of it is legal as long as no verbiage actually encouraging these practices is present.
Stop paying the monopoly prices! Kick the monopoly capital in its balls!
Wojtek