THE issue of IPRs has always been in the fore-front and now also a bone of contention between the developed and the developing worlds. The former considers the copy of it’s products as gross infringement, while the later- to some extent, is of the opinion that enactment and implementation of any IPR law would be a straight jacket for it.

The developing countries also opine that the royalty amounts, if paid, are inordinately inflated and extortionist in nature. There is also a consensus that the jurisdiction of patents should be restricted to the country of the origin and not be applicable internationally.

Interestingly, in the developed world, the comparatively disadvantaged buy imitations rather than the “original” high priced items. The people in these countries stay afloat through institutional support like medicare, national health care and the state paying for the educational needs basically through the high inland revenue collections. The burden is so much that the governments there are contemplating ever more stringent regulations to rein in the IPR demands (predominantly of the multinationals).

What exactly are patents and the intellectual property rights (IPRs)? Inventions and innovations have been registered since long in the West and even in our area. These are normally restricted to the inventor (it can be individuals or entities) or to the person or entity authorized by the inventor. As such the invention can only be gainfully or commercially used by paying a royalty on the product or idea. All this historically used to be a small portion of the cost of the finished product, and thus not much of weight, on the converter/ producer or the end-user.

Things have changed with the advent of the MNCs and the power that came with it. The full force of this new found power was firstly displayed by the drugs manufacturers of USA and Europe. These MNCs would get hold of the best and the brightest and then engage this technical resource in research. And then at a find, the MNCs would bill the patients tens of thousands times the monies spent on the basic R&D, the gestation periods, on the actual application of the drugs, on getting licenses from regulators, on funding allied theoretical research, creating a reserve and lastly, for marketing and selling the drugs. Of late, these drug-making giants have increased their margins to cover expenses from law suits and fines etc. This is the case for other high-tech items.

As production of all these items was beyond the manufacturing capability of the developing countries, patent laws and the concept of any real implementation of the IPR, in a way, remained restricted to the West.

As proficiency grew in our parts, the actual issue of enforcement appeared on the horizon two decades ago. This became more important when software as a distinct industry came into operations.

More so, when prices of simple products had no relevance to the actual cost or for that matter all possible costs put together. Unprecedented gains or profits enables Microsoft to buy anything it wants. Even the most stringent of the anti-trust laws cannot unravel the Microsoft kingdom. It is a fact that the present gains for such products are improper, to say the least.

Where are these new billions of dollars destined to be spent. Surely on expansion of the existing production facilities, on more R&D, on somehow garnering the best of the human resource and talent, on ensuring that the laws are made compliant, and lastly for implementation of the laws, which may, in some cases, be brought to light through graft and deft manoeuvring of the public opinion and the legislation.

And as the drug companies and computer makers (hardware and software included) have by now earned hundreds of billions of dollars, they are in the fore-front of the effort to implement the patents and the IPR laws all around the globe- this being the way towards a sustainable growth. Unlike some hi-tech products, both drugs and software are comparatively easy to replicate in any standard lab, and thus both these sectors have been under attack firstly in places like Italy, Hong Kong, South Korea and now nearly everywhere and specifically in China. India and Pakistan have had their say in software. As a consequence, a $1000 programme may be available in Lahore’s Hall Road as cheaply as for Rs50.

WTO has laid down some pre-conditions with IPRs attaining pre-eminence like nothing before. Pakistan has promulgated the ordinance for the establishment of the Intellectual Property Organization of Pakistan (IPO). The ordinance—PIPRO-2005 came into effect August 7, 2005.

The PIPRO 2005 will provide protection to intellectual property rights and all matters connected with it. The IPO, on the other hand, will need much time before it is operational and also sets up its field offices. In a way, the drug companies and the software giants have their agent in place, which very soon would possess the wherewithal to look after their interests.

What should be the charter of this kind of organization- a policing department, a regulator, a facilitator or an amalgam of all these functions. All this has to be fixed at the very start.

How would the average Pakistani user fare under the changed circumstances. Are there any chances that their rights could ever also be protected. It is very important as the original software is very expensive and so are books and medicine and that the quoted prices have no relevance to the cost of production (coupled with fair profit etc.).

PIPRO 2005 should be linked with a national resolve that any imported item would be at a fair price. It may sound improbable, but doing so may not be difficult. In fact, this has to be the quid pro quo for implementation of the PIPRO 2005.

Additionally, the government would also have to arrange for comparatively cheaper import of high-tech goods and then operate the way the National Bank Foundation (NBF) did on it’s inception in the 1970s. The NBF enabled Pakistani doctors, engineers and scientists to study technical books and allied materials which were beyond their means.

As such IPO as an organization would have to arrange for cheap availability of patents for the Pakistani manufacturer and also the user. The little benefit PIPRO 2005 may bring for the local writer or an inventor is too small a gain to let the developed world, through the MNCs, get away with windfalls.

The MNCs target increases profits each year. The policy makers would have to deal with this issue equitably. Here the Chinese example would come handy. The government deals with the price part of hi-tech imports, while the entrepreneur just took care of the eventual copying and manufacture.

This all enabled Chinese to start manufacturing, enter into alliances and co-production and then concentrate on exports. This also helped China to attract foreign direct investment (FDI) worth $450 billion last fiscal.

As against this, Pakistan is under pressures from US investors to assure IPR implementation along with rationalization of present taxation levels. The government intervention is needed to get the fruits of R&D of the West at an affordable price.

Another facet to the issue is the wind-fall being presently made by the local pirates. This needs to be put to a stop and only the IPO licensed manufacturers may produce or replicate the patented goods.