NEWS
Page 4
April 15, 2010
Economist addresses intellectual property rights Chelsea Peterson-Salahuddin
“I
Guest Reporter
Arthur S. May Elementary School faces risk of closing SCHOOL continued from page 1 parents, students and teachers protested the potential closing, converging on the sidewalk in front of the school in red shirts and carrying signs. For former Davison House Fellow Lisa Kaul, parent of a first grader and a leader of the rally who compiled an open letter to the Board of Education, commented that Superintendent of the Arlington Central School District Frank Pepe had been opposed to the protest and “tried his best not to have this happen.” As it was, the protesters were instructed to temporarily put their signs down when the school buses drove by at the end of the day, so as to not put the students “in the middle” of the problem, explained Kaul. However, as soon as the buses left, many of the schoolchildren joined in to rally with their parents and community members. Parents are upset for a number of reasons, not least because the school has been very successful academically with the third-highest test scores of the nine elementary schools in the district and scoring in the 72nd percentile in the state. Arthur S. May is also a Title I school, which means that at least 40 percent of students are from low-income families, and it is the most socio-economically diverse elementary school in its district. As a Title I school, it receives extra funding to be used at the school’s discretion for such purposes as extra academic counseling and free breakfasts for students. The parents and children celebrate this fact; at one point in the rally, the crowd chanted, “A-BC-D, celebrate diversity!” Should the children be dispersed to other schools, they may lose their Title I benefits. If Arthur S. May is closed and students are bused to other schools in the district, low-income families without independent means of transportation will no longer be within walking distance of their children’s schools, and will have a difficult time picking up sick children or attending parent-teacher conferences. The school is located in one of the most densely populated areas in the district, and Gunnar
Danell, one of the fathers at the rally, noted, “If our kids go to school far away, there will be extra cost.” Parent Teacher Association Member and Vassar Academic Computing Consultant Baynard Bailey’s ’90 family “moved to this neighborhood because we wanted our children to attend this school…With all the changes that are happening, it makes us think about leaving the neighborhood.” Vassar Assistant Professor of Political Science Fubing Su observed that the school’s proximity to Vassar is convenient for College employees. A number of Vassar students were also at the rally in solidarity with the students, parents and teachers. Elsie Raymer ’12 does field work in one of the kindergarten classrooms and feels that “this school seems to be a really good staple here.” If the school closes and 500 children are relocated, parents are concerned that overcrowding at the other elementary schools will become an issue. In addition, closing the school would mean that many teachers and administrators would lose their jobs, and as “shoppers, home-owners and tax-payers,” wrote Kaul in an open letter to the board, “their job loss will only increase the economic distress of the community as a whole.” One of her suggestions to the Board of Education is to initiate a salary and benefits freeze for faculty and administrative members. At present, 70 percent of the budget goes to payroll, benefits and pensions, and as Su pointed out, “There may be a salary issue.” No formal decision will be made about the school’s fate until the community votes on May 18. As this date approaches, the parents and teachers behind Monday’s rally plan to canvas the community to inform people about how, where and when to vote. Until then, they will continue to present their demands to the Board of Education and to spread awareness about the issue.
scape of patenting before Jefferson even took on the issue. In the U.S. patent-granting system, a monopoly on certain knowledge has been established. Here, it was Henry’s intent to show how said monopolies can have a detrimental effect on the continuation of innovation. Henry began by highlighting that the original creator of the thing that is being patented may not be the person granted the patent, and this could lead to an upset among the inventors. In another point, Henry focused on the patenting of biological gene sequences that, if deprivatized, could have serious medical impacts on finding the cure of terminal ailments such as cancer. If these biological discoveries were not patented to a single source, various researchers could study the gene in hopes of finding a cure to these illnesses. In this instance, the lecturer elaborated on the fact that the current system of overarching patents could lead to the hindrance of innovation as opposed to encouraging it. Henry then moved to talking about the ineffectiveness of the patent system in use by various systems of government. In his lecture, Henry showed that a unified system of patenting would be unable to fit the interest of all countries, because of the diversity in economic size and strength, especially with regard to developed versus developing countries. Rather, Henry suggested that various countries should choose their degrees of investment in new technologies according to their government. In addition, Henry believes a reform should be established that will help developing countries create a more sustainable system of development. In the closing part of his lecture, Henry recommended four lines of reform to the existing U.S. patent system which would help deprivatize intellectually property. His first suggestion was to put into place more restrictions on those things which could be patented. His second point was that if an individual thinks that he has a valid reason for contesting a patent, he should be able to sue for the re-examination of said patent. He advocated for this opposition to take place preferably during, as opposed to after, the granting of the patent. In regards to the tribunal established by the international community to assess whether or not an opposing claim was valid, Henry did not feel those who grant patents are well versed enough in certain areas to decide the legitimacy of these claims, and therefore also advocated that these claims be assessed by a panel constructed of experts in the field of the subject for which each patent is being granted. His third reform stated that within a certain period of time after something is first patent-
flickr.com/vassarcollegemedia
f I have seen further, it is by standing on the shoulders of giants.” With this single declarative line, from a letter written in 1676 by Sir Isaac Newton, economist and Professor of Sustainable Development at the Institut d’Études Politiques de Paris Claude Henry began his lecture on April 7. The lecture, entitled “Intellectual Property and Innovation for Sustainable Development,” was this year’s Martin H. Crego lecture, which is presented annually by the Economics Department. The Martin H. Crego lecture, established in 1956, is an annual economics lecture given as a part of the Crego Endowment. The Crego Endowment was established by Jean Crego, Class of 1932, given in honor of her father Martin Crego. The purpose of the endowment, as stated by Professor of Economics and Department Chair Shirley Johnson-Lans, is to annually bring to campus “a distinguished academic congress...who could share his or her academic experience [and] who talks to the students in particular, but the community as well.” Henry, who is a quantum physicist turned economist, was the advisor to former Prime Minister of France Lionel Jospin on matters pertaining to public utilities and environmental policies until 2002 and is currently an advisor to the director of the European Environmental Agency Jacqueline McGlade. In his lecture, Henry discussed whether or not intellectual property promotes or inhibits development, and presented possible alternatives to the current system of patents currently in place. Henry’s use of Newton’s message in the opening of this lecture was clear: One should not privatize the shoulders of giants. This relates back to the idea that knowledge is a public good and therefore should be handled publicly not privately.
However, the current system of patents that exists throughout today’s world opposes this idea and privatizes knowledge. Henry presented the opposing idea by looking at Joseph Schumpeter’s book on the etchings of development that linked profits to innovation, which stated “that there will be no innovation if the products of the invention are not protected.” This is based upon the idea that inventors must put in a large amount of energy and funds towards innovation and therefore need to be offered something in return in order for innovation to continue. Yet, Henry made the point that this is a superficial reading of the text, for a closer reading of Schumpeter’s text expresses the idea that the products, but not necessarily the knowledge behind the products, should be protected. It is with these ideas that Henry began to state his opinions on the dissemination of intellectual property. Henry organized his lecture into three sections, stating as his intention that he would “try to show that what happened since the 1800s [in regards to patenting] has had so serious and detrimental consequences that a deep reform is necessary.” The first section of this lecture discussed the basic principles established, mainly by Thomas Jefferson, regarding patenting. This section was also intended to show that economic analysis tends to vindicate traditional principles. According to Jefferson, the government should only patent things of practical use, not those of marginal usefulness. In addition, Jefferson said that the length of patents should be restricted, depending upon the breadth and scope of the invention. Finally, Jefferson believed that there should not be a patent put on intellectual property. In the second part of the lecture, Henry spoke about events that occurred at the beginning of the 18th century that began to change the land-
Professor of Sustainable Development Claude Henry, pictured above, spoke at Vassar on April 7. ed, other inventors asking for the same patent should be granted a patent as well, establishing a joint patent. One specific incident which Henry used to exemplify this point was in regards to Alexander Graham Bell and Thomas Edison. Alexander Graham Bell was the first inventor to patent the invention of the telephone; however, Thomas Edison developed his own model of the telephone at the same time and asked for the patent a mere few days after Bell. If Edison had been granted a joint patent on this invention instead of being denied a patent, according to Henry, an earlier flux of innovation and technological advancement could have been seen in regards to the telephone. Finally, Henry’s last point of reform was to go to an open source of knowledge, meaning that patents should protect inventions. Yet, as Schumpeter said, the knowledge behind said inventions should not be patented, which greatly complicates the situation. In addition, any knowledge regarding technological advancement on the product should be released to anyone willing to pay for it. These reforms all aim at helping to disseminate knowledge, while conserving some form of patenting to serve as an incentive for innovation, for as Henry said, “If a monopoly freezes a technique on which it has a patent, it can be very serious.”
VSA to vote on SAVP proposal SAVP continued from page 1 resentatives in drafting this proposal. “This is an incredibly important position [and] I think it is really valuable for this council to support things that are a little more meaningful to the student experience.” The position of Sexual Assault Violence Prevention Coordinator was dissolved for the first time in the 2009-2010 academic year; it had been financially supported by the Department of Justice Grant for the Prevention of Violence Against Women. When this grant was not renewed, the Department of Health Education came to house the program, and the Director of Health Education was given the responsibilities previously assigned to the coordinator. Director of Health Education Renee Pabst states in the proposal, “I believe that as Director of Health Education, I have done as much as I could to sustain the [Sexual Assault Violence Prevention] program, but there is still a huge gap in services for our students who are survivors of interpersonal violence.” The proposal also notes a marked decline in the number of cases of sexual assault being reported, and warns that “we would love to believe that this is due to a lower rate of interpersonal violence occurring on our campus, which would be naïve and a dangerous assumption.” In the 2008-2009 academic year, 40 students sought out services and support; this
—Additional reporting by Matthew Brock, News Editor
MISCELLANY NEWS | VASSAR COLLEGE
year there were 10. According to the proposal, the Coordinator would be in charge of “proactive programming,” “training for different areas of the campus community,” and “addressing policy issues and judicial procedures,” as well as support and counseling for victims. Pabst said at the VSA meeting that many members of the Sexual Assault Response Team have been incredibly helpful with aiding individual victims by accompanying them to therapy and support group sessions, but that this seriously inconveniences these individuals, who are usually staff, administrators and faculty members who must take time off their normal work to take on these roles within the Response Team. The position would require a large financial investment of $35,000 per year. Vice President for Operations Brian Farkas ’10 said at the VSA meeting, “Obviously we’re concerned about the cost of the position…but this is still an important student priority.” Farkas continued on to suggest further discussion of the position despite the cost and proposed the possibility of a part-time position if the $35,000 is too much for the College to handle in the current economy. The VSA Council will formally vote on whether or not to support this proposal at their April 18 meeting.