■ 孫遠釗 Andy Y. Sun
November 3, 1928 marks the beginning of modern-day immunology and toxicology. It was on this date that Dr. Alexander Fleming discovered Penicillin, which forever changes the treatment of bacterial infections. Ironically, being a humanist and with the hope that everyone can freely contribute to the further research of this promising discovery, Dr. Fleming's decision not to seek patent protection from the outset eventually contributed to the fact that no one took his discovery seriously – as there is no profit incentives for pharmaceutical companies but only high risks to undertake in new drug development – until the world headed way into the Second World War and thousands of lives had already perished.
Looking back, some historian couldn't help but lament, had Dr. Fleming sought for patent or intellectual property protection, things could have been quite different, as other researchers and pharmaceutical companies would have a much stronger incentive to engage in research and development so that many lives could have been saved earlier in the war.
This story highlights the real objective of today's intellectual property protection: the system is designed to balance the private interests of the creator or inventor with that of the public good. The system uses what we called 'public disclosure" or "public notice" to encourage the disclosure of ideas and thoughts so that others do not need to reinvent the wheel. On the other hand, intellectual property is an exclusive right to prevent others from unauthorized or unpermitted use of the creator's creation for a limited time. In other words, just like you want to borrow something from your friend, you need to ask for permission, which is the natural and right thing to do.
Regrettably, what has been by and large a fair and balanced system has been perceived rather negatively in recent time, partly because more companies are adopting an aggressive strategy to go after infringers now that they are aware of the importance and value of their intangible assets and partly because many consumers are taking advantage of easy and fast reproduction methods to obtain free products of others, thanks in part to the advancement of technology, and are reluctant to pay.
Normally at the beginning of each semester, I would ask my students what they think "intellectual property" is all about. Not surprisingly, I would get an earful, from MP3 downloads to the high prices of Microsoft software products. The underlining arguments can be summed up in this fashion: that the product is either too expensive or not worth the "real" value, yet because it is nevertheless a necessity in our daily lives, there is really no other choice but to find ways to get it for free or very little, if at all possible.
I appreciate the frustration that there may be only one or two songs "worth listening" out of an entire compact disc, or that the calling price of the Microsoft Office is still far beyond the budget of a regular college student, even with special educational discount being provided. I also feel strongly that some of the manufacturers may have set too high and rigid a price for some of their most popular products. Yet I can hardly comprehend the justification of what otherwise and in every aspect a blatant act of theft to the need of having something in someone's possession. Affordability or the lack thereof should never be the justification for piracy. To engage in real, meaningful negotiations over price with those manufacturers, the consuming end must first stand on the moral high ground to obtain the necessary leverage.
While people are willing to pay ten times the cost to buy a shirt (so that we all help sustain the entire supply chain of the garment industry), the easiness of copying rendering the digital-content market a ghost town for legitimate businesses here in Taiwan. This will only and further worsen the local brain drain, and we the consumers may pay the ultimate price for losing our cultural heritage. An example on hand is the local film industry.
Time is ripe to build up a sound distribution system with intellectual property rights and values at its core. This is also one of the proven ways that we can generate more high paying jobs and the enhancement of our competitiveness and technologies. Regardless of being at the manufacturing or consuming end, no matter how expensive a product is, piracy is forever an act of theft and can never be justified simply because we want it, like it or need it.
（IMBA Instructor and Associate Professor，Graduate Institute of Intellectual Property， National Chengchi University）
西元1928年11月3日，是近代免疫學和毒物學的肇始之日。當天，亞歷山大．佛萊明博士（Dr. Alexander Fleming）發現了青黴素，從此改變了細菌感染的治療。頗具反諷的是，身為人道主義者的佛萊明博士，為了讓大家都能免費的去對這項很有希望的發現從事進一步的研究，一開始就選擇了不去申請專利保護，不想卻導致沒有人正視他的研究成果。因為沒有專利保護就意味著該項藥品的開發對製藥商而言是無利可圖，但卻仍要去承擔其中的高風險。結果一直等到第二次世界大戰爆發，千萬的生命喪失之後才研製出青黴素。
使用就須要付費
回溯這段史實，有些歷史學者不禁慨歎，如果當初佛萊明博士尋求了專利或是智慧財產權的保護，情況也許將大大不同。因為如此一來，就會讓其他的研究員或是製藥廠商有更強的誘因來參與研發工作，從而或許在戰爭初期便能挽回更多的生命。
這個故事突顯了智慧財產權的真諦：智慧財產權是為了平衡發明者或創造者的個人利益與社會從而得享的公共福利所發展出的一套系統。其中是以所謂的「公開發表」或「公示週知」來鼓勵人們把想法公開出來，後人就不必再去閉門造車。
另一方面，智慧財產權保障了該發明在一段期間內不會受到他人未經授權或許可的使用。就彷彿我們想和朋友借東西，總是要請求對方的許可一樣的道理，是非常自然且正確的事。
遺憾的是，智慧財產權這項平衡的設計在現代卻產生了好些負面的評價。部份原因是由於越來越多的公司在知曉了他們的無形資產的價值和重要性後，就採取相當積極和強硬的手段來對付侵權行為人；另一部分則是拜先進科技之賜，很多消費者都想利用快捷的重製技術來免費取得他人的產品而不願去付費。
再貴也不能仿冒
在每個學期開始時，我通常會問徵詢學生們對智慧財產的看法。果不其然，通常我總是會聽到許多關於MP3下載或是微軟高價產品的評論。而其中的論點不外是：這些產品太過於昂貴或是定價遠高過它的「真正」價值，卻又是每天生活的必需品，因此如果可以的話，總是得想辦法以最少的代價或免費方式來取得。
我可以全然理解一整張唱片裡或許真的只有一兩首「值得聽」的歌曲，也知道就算是有學生折扣，微軟的Office軟體價格仍遠超過普通大學生的預算等所帶來的沮喪感。我也對有些廠商把他們廣受歡迎的產品定價太高有相當強烈的意見。但是，我卻無法認同基於這些原因，就可以把剽竊為己有的行為合理化。無負擔能力永遠無法成為讓剽竊正當化的理由。為了爭取和廠商從事真正、有意義的議價諮商，消費者端首先就必須站住道德的制高點才能獲得必要的談判籌碼。
創意人才出頭天
當人們願意付出十倍的價格來購買一件襯衣時（我們就能幫助支撐整個成衣業的供應鍊），台灣的數位內容市場卻因盜版的容易度及盛行而使合法經營商相當悽涼。這只會進一步造成本地的人才枯竭，而我們這些消費者們則終將為失去的文化遺產付出終極的代價，本地的電影事業就是一例。
打造一個以智慧財產權及其價值為核心的行銷體系已然時機成熟。這也是業經證明可以開創更多的高薪工作、提昇競爭力與科技的不二法門。而無論是在製造與消費端，即使我們多想要、多喜歡或多需要某項產品，即便它的價格再貴也永遠無法開脫仿冒便是竊盜的事實。
（作者是IMBA任課老師，政大智慧財產研究所副教授）
【2005/04/03 經濟日報】
沒有留言:
張貼留言