R E - R E A D E R - Biro Beograd

on the subject, but I think the civil liberties
angle of it hasn’t really shown through.
Now you mentioned some other issues
addressed by Pirate Party. Most people
think you are dealing exclusively with
copyright, but there are two more things
in your agenda, one is patents and the
other one is privacy. Regarding patents,
could you briefly describe your proposition
to abolish patents, especially in the
case of the pharmaceutical industry, as
elaborated on PP web site?
We believe quite firmly that the patent debate
is going to come just parallel to the
copyright debate, only twenty or thirty years
out. It’s exactly parallel in every detail. It’s
artificial scarcity, it’s monopoly on ideas, it
is an exclusivity that doesn’t make economic
sense. It’s an obstacle to innovation. And
if you look at pharmaceutical industry for
example, there is the obvious sign that patents
are not for innovation as a whole and
that the big pharmaceutical companies are
lobbying for more patents. It’s good for their
monopoly but not for innovation as such. So,
what we are saying is that if you look at the
big pharmas’ own numbers, just by cutting
out patents you can actually reduce government
spending, since, at least in Europe, this
is not the case all over the world, but at least
in Europe, the pharma revenue comes up
to eighty percent from government anyway.
And a lot of that is just flushed down the toilet
in patent fees. Big pharmas are spending
two thirds of their research money, which is
already just 15 percent, circumventing each
other’s patents. So this sort of myth that patents
are required to make new drugs is just a
myth perpetrated by these people who desire
a monopoly. In reality these patents kill people.
They prevent people in the third world
from making medicine for themselves and I
think that is immoral, evil and unjust. There
78
is no point in adding such an artificial scarcity.
That was pharma. In other industries,
patents are ranging from “unnecessary” to
“preventing innovation”. If you look at mobile
phones, for example, patents are usually
granted long after the phones are retired and
taken off the market. They are granted only
when the phones become obsolete. So, why
do you continuously invent in the mobile
phone market?
Obviously not because you can get patents.
You invent, because if you don’t invent, you
are not going to sell any mobile phones. So
patents are not necessary as an incentive to
invent. The incentive is there because if you
don’t invent you are not going to sell any
products.
Abolishing patents sounds like a sound
proposition. Have you had any contacts
on any level with the representatives of
government or pharmaceutical industry,
any reactions from that side?
Oh yes, they were actually quite funny. There
was a guy, I think he was even a lobbyist
with the big pharma industry from Sweden,
who took me out to lunch to try to explain
to me their position. He said, “well you have
to realize that we make all these big investments”.
Yeah, but you still spend only 15 %
on research. “But you have to realize that we
make all of these big investments”... So, let
me just say that he was not very convincing.
Especially since these are the guys who have
lobbied for more copyright protection.
Waiting to enter the Swedish parliament
or European parliament, who do you collaborate
with among other parties, for
example here in Sweden? Do you have
any joint strategic or tactical plans, any
talks about coalitions, mutual support,
any shared agenda with somebody?