Intellectual Propriety

INTELLECT: the faculty of knowing, reasoning, understanding. Propriety: fitness, rightness, suitability, correct conduct. Intellectuals are those willing to expand their knowledge, utilise their reasoning abilities and to communicate and subject their derived wisdom to others. The idea of intellectual proprietary is the yardstick by which new ideas are judged by the others.

But here comes the rub! Who are the others, the suitable, fit or with established credibility to add accepted intellectual value? This is an area where the academics, politicians and corporate giants have cornered the market through legalistic fervour geared to suppress ideas that conflict with their financial and social objectives. Critical input has been carefully manipulated to ensure monopolistic advantage is not only maintained but reinforced. Creativity is confined by self interest, media control and the ability to hide behind the law. A prime impact of globalisation, price collusion and the optimisation of ‘aggregate demand’.But a brighter scenario is now emerging through the emergence of digital communication. There are now the ‘twits’, those who twitter, the bloggerati and multiple interactive discussion sites. While these are all relatively new, often full of rubbish and badly reasoned they do, when filtered, often have highly creative content. Who are credible intellectuals now?In parliamentary scene we recently had ministerial comments on the budgetary matters suggesting that loans should be given to ‘entrepreneurs who knowingly misuse the money’ but should also ‘receive loans with little security and less than prime interest’; these same administrators are those who blame the US/UK for the current financial crisis for doing exactly the same! Seems they fail the propriety test.It is rare that completely original concepts materialise; most good ideas are application of several known processes assembled in a different way. For instance as a bit of fun, Guantanamo Bay is soon closing and US relations with Cuba are on the way up. What a brilliant place for summits to be held; isolated, secure, unencumbered by diversionary opportunity; austerity, cheap and a ‘back to basics’ environment; an intellectual boot camp. All on the same level, no scramble for the limousines; pure equality. Wow, that should go down like a lead balloon. Or Avian and Swine flu mutated so pigs can fly!Strangely, these thoughts were provoked by an excellent opinion piece (Namibian, 29 April 2009) by HerEx Mathieu of the US. The end comment ‘to redouble efforts to encourage and protect intellectual property (IP)’ and ‘to foster a robust environment for global innovation’ seem to be in conflict when viewed from a Namibian perspective as the powerful nations and corporations, through their financial and legal clout, tend to monopolise patents/IP rights and are part of the ‘branding’ game. From a US perspective IP rights are a source of income; from a Namibian perspective they represent an upfront cost (or legal risk!).As HerEx correctly states agricultural and energy sectors are prime targets for growth and co-operation but wind farms, concentrated solar power, small solar panel packages are old hat and local manufacture required upfront agreement and payment. Thus IP rights are a disincentive to make things locally and financial protocols (MCA?) give incentive to contract and import. It seems to me that IP rights should receive benefit based on local delivery criteria rather than just access.And yes, the Brazilian Soya example has had huge impact on production but is also having a major impact on Amazon deforestation! Ouch.Yes, easy to criticise but mutual benefit requires give and take; IP rights, I suggest tend to take. More open debate is needed. Forward you brave intellectuals and free thinkers!csmith@mweb.com.na