hi arvind,
i think i get your point. intellectual property rights do make a large impact in the area you are working in. maybe not in the scenario i work in, which is furniture (mostly for the home).
in the case of the furniture industry, i would say atleast 90% belongs to the unorganised sector. which would basically mean skilled crafts persons. how do you enforce intellectual property rights in this case? i beleive the best thing is to share our knowledge openly with all so that more and more products around us become meaningful. which is to say that they would justly use the natural resources and provide for better function.
honestly i dont have much knowledge about business issues and how the industry and market functions and therefore i would be the wrong person to be commenting on such issues.

regards
yusuf.


On Thu, 09 Dec 2004 Arvind Karir wrote :
>Dear Yusuf,
>
>The idea behind patent filing was that the knowledge be brought into public domain,
>and shared for the benefit of humankind. It is only appropriate that there be some form of compensation, either recognition or monetary etc. in return for the work by individual/s.
>
>If we have turned this into a money grabbing pursuit, then it is a symptom/reflection of our times, and not necessarily because patenting IP (Intellectual Property) is evil.
>
>If any one likes, they can file for the patent (which is a good place to spread the knowledge), and not ask for any compensation.
>
>I work in a high-tech field where IP is jealously invented, guarded and protected, and sometimes the only asset you have. We spend a lot of time and efforts in creating IP, and from a business standpoint are very interested in profitability. Without profits, the organization cannot survive, hence cannot create more IP, which is at the very core of our culture of "material progress".
>
>If the paradigm was to shift where the majority of humankind became interested in "spiritual progress" then the focus would shift to a "not-monetary" reward system, with resultant impact on the forces of IP creation/protection.
>
>Hope you understand my viewpoint on business' perspective on IP issues.
>
>Regards,
>Arvind Karir
>
>
>yusuf mannan <yusufin@...> wrote:
>
>
>
>hi,
>amit. i am sorry i dont know of you. but i totally agree with you about this patenting business. we as designers should be making nice meaningful things not for the sake of monopolising on an idea to make hoards of money, but instead we should be sharing our ideas and products freely with all. i guess in the long run, that would be more benfetial.
>yusuf.
>
>
>
>On Thu, 18 Nov 2004 Amit Sheth wrote :
> >
> >Dear Arvind and fellow designers,
> >The basic problem I feel is bound to a simple yet complex and unavoidable
> >(for the majority) phenomenon "more & more".
> >We do not know when or what is enough.
> >And to repeat Papanek's sentence in the introduction of his book "Design for
> >the Real World", Design is the second worst profession in the world (after
> >advertising).
> >Yes, Adbusters is a great movement, and there are many fora where issues on
> >green design and sustainable design and need based design and design for the
> >less abled etc is discussed ad nauseum - unfortunately enough is not
> >happening at the end of the day. Instead of a top down approach we need a
> >bottom up method where these issues are made critical in our design learning
> > from school level as well as the grad and post grad levels. Instead (or in
> >addition for the present as change is always slow) we should have incentives
> >and awards for design which makes real sense.
> >Here is an idea - very basic but a start. Why don't a few of us start a
> >website (free space is abundantly available) where meaningful design
> >products are posted with details and encouraging others to freely use what
> >would be for the real good of all. Knowledge shared only increases in
> >content and depth. Why should everything be patented specially when the
> >benefits to the masses on this planet can be so enormous. Remember Papanek's
> >can radio?
> >
> >For some who may have missed Arvind's response I am repeating it below.
> >
> >Regards,
> >Amit.
> >
> >
> > > Message: 4
> > >  Date: Thu, 11 Nov 2004 11:12:22 +0530
> > >  From: "Arvind Lodaya" <emailarvind@...>
> > > Subject: branding - debate
> > >
> > > I am delighted to see a debate shaping up on the problematic issue of
> > > brands and branding, and I'd like to add my own two-bits worth for you to
> > > consider:
> > >  a.. First, we have to acknowledge that brands have transcended from being
> > > mere instruments of trade ("trade marks") to cultural indices ("I always
> > > use a Lamy to write/draw/sign with." - even anti-branding positions serve
> > > the very same purpose - "I don't take my kids to McDonalds ever").
> > >  b.. Second, there's nothing alarming or unusual about this, because in a
> > > sense, artefacts have always been significant cultural indices of
> > > civilisations since times immemorial (ritual objects, seals, everyday
> > > utilitarian items).
> > >  c.. Third, brands as markers of belonging/ownership ("branded" cattle,
> > > "tattooed" clubgoers) have also played a key role in identity formation,
> > > articulation & expression.
> > >  d.. Unfortunately, we designers have been trained in an uncritical
> > > discourse that glorifies "craft skill" almost to the exclusion of
> > > "understanding and criticising" what we actually do.
> > >  e.. We confront the significance & implications of our work in our
> > > practice, but the exigencies of "professionalism" conspire to always push
> > > it on the back-burner.
> > >  f.. I'd like to cite here the historic "First Things First" manifesto of
> > > 2000 that led to the formation of "adbusters" and unleashed a wave of
> > > anti-branding material globally. I end my contribution for now leaving you
> > > to read & react to this:
> > >  g.. We, the undersigned, are graphic designers, art directors and visual
> > > communicators who have been raised in a world in which the techniques and
> > > apparatus of advertising have persistently been presented to us as the
> > > most lucrative, effective and desirable use of our talents. Many design
> > > teachers and mentors promote this belief; the market rewards it; a tide of
> > > books and publications reinforces it.
> > >  Encouraged in this direction, designers then apply their skill and
> > > imagination to sell dog biscuits, designer coffee, diamonds, detergents,
> > > hair gel, cigarettes, credit cards, sneakers, butt toners, light beer and
> > > heavy-duty recreational vehicles. Commercial work has always paid the
> > > bills, but many graphic designers have now let it become, in large
> > > measure, what graphic designers do. This, in turn, is how the world
> > > perceives design. The profession's time and energy is used up
> > > manufacturing demand for things that are inessential at best.
> > >
> > >  Many of us have grown increasingly uncomfortable with this view of
> > > design. Designers who devote their efforts primarily to advertising,
> > > marketing and brand development are supporting, and implicitly endorsing,
> > > a mental environment so saturated with commercial messages that it is
> > > changing the very way citizen-consumers speak, think, feel, respond and
> > > interact. To some extent we are all helping draft a reductive and
> > > immeasurably harmful code of public discourse.
> > >
> > >  There are pursuits more worthy of our problem-solving skills.
> > > Unprecedented environmental, social and cultural crises demand our
> > > attention. Many cultural interventions, social marketing campaigns, books,
> > > magazines, exhibitions, educational tools, television programs, films,
> > > charitable causes and other information design projects urgently require
> > > our expertise and help.
> > >
> > >  We propose a reversal of priorities in favor of more useful, lasting and
> > > democratic forms of communication - a mindshift away from product
> > > marketing and toward the exploration and production of a new kind of
> > > meaning. The scope of debate is shrinking; it must expand. Consumerism is
> > > running uncontested; it must be challenged by other perspectives
> > > expressed, in part, through the visual languages and resources of design.
> > >
> > >  In 1964, 22 visual communicators signed the original call for our skills
> > > to be put to worthwhile use. With the explosive growth of global
> > > commercial culture, their message has only grown more urgent. Today, we
> > > renew their manifesto in expectation that no more decades will pass before
> > > it is taken to heart.
> > >
> > >
> > > [This message contained attachments]
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > ________________________________________________________________________
> > > ________________________________________________________________________
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > Yahoo! Groups Links
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >Yahoo! Groups Links
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>---------------------------------
>Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>    To visit your group on the web, go to:
>http://in.groups.yahoo.com/group/designindia/
>
>    To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
>designindia-unsubscribe@...
>
>    Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
>
>
>
>
>---------------------------------
>Do you Yahoo!?
>  Yahoo! Mail - Helps protect you from nasty viruses.