[ Please distribute this as widely as possible, wherever appropriate.
This announces public availability of
PLPC-120033 –
Nature Of Poly-Existenials:
Basis For Abolishment Of The Western Intellectual Property Rights Regime
available in
HTML and
PDF
formats.
The transcript of this email is web published
as
PLPC-120073
and is also available in
pdf format. ]
Dear Colleague:
Happy May day. Intellectual workers of the world unite!
The sense in which I broadly address you as a colleague is based on the particular aspect of our professions’ relationship to patents and copyright (Intellectual Property – IP). I am a software and internet engineer.
In a way, you and I are both “Intellectual Workers”. Our professions – be it: software, engineering, teaching, research, arts, journalism, medicine, pharmacy, plant biology, etc. – all involve production or propagation of Intellectual Property. As a medical doctor, when you prescribe patented medications, you are propagating patents. As a software engineer working for the likes of Microsoft, Google, Amazon, Facebook, etc when you write code, you are producing copyrighted opaque, restricted and proprietary software and internet services.
Hence, the way that the patent and copyright systems operate impact our professions. The purpose of this communication with you is in the context of each of our profession’s responsibility towards health of the society and the responsibilities of each of us towards our profession.
This responsibilities oriented model is distinct and different from the generally economic American model. If you do not believe in the notion of the responsibilities that I mentioned, then contents of this email are likely not of interest to you.
The notion of Intellectual Property is a fundamental and colossal mistake. The Western Intellectual Property Rights (IPR) regime directly and indirectly impacts autonomy and privacy of the individual and health of society. The IPR model has unleashed certain dynamics that result in us seeing more deterioration of more aspects of our autonomy and privacy every day. These dynamics are complex and include further empowerment of corporations and the corporate model, leading to Corpocracy. IPR regime has put humanity in danger. But, this is not commonly well understood.
The debate on validity of Intellectual Property can now be closed. I have came up with a model that can be used to prove that copyright and patent laws are invalid as any form of personal property. The proof that I offer is rooted purely in nature and logic. It stands completely outside of particular human belief systems and societal consensus. Therefore, the proof for invalidity of the Western IP regime is not limited to its context within any particular society. Western IP is universally invalid.
I am presenting my thoughts in a document titled:
The Nature of Poly-Existentials:
Basis for Abolishment of The Western Intellectual Property Rights Regime
http://mohsen.1.banan.byname.net/PLPC/120033 — [8]
The scope of this document is most of what surrounds Intellectual Property. The full document is about 200 pages. The pdf format is available for both US paper size and A4 paper size.
There are 3 main parts to the document. In the first part, we introduce the concept of poly-existence and based on that prove that IP is invalid. In the second part, we debunk common myth that surrounds the Western IPR regime. In the third part we propose some cures towards eradicating this disease.
I am including the introductory section of the document below. After reviewing this introduction, if you decide to read the full document, I’ll be very interested in receiving your thoughts and feedback.
At your service,
| Mohsen Banan | http://mohsen.1.banan.byname.net |
| محسن بنان | http://mohsen.1.banan.byname.net/persian |
| Libre-Halaal Foundation | http://www.freeprotocols.org |
| Neda Communications, Inc. | http://www.neda.com |
| ByStar (By*) | http://www.by-star.net |
| Contact | http://mohsen.1.banan.byname.net/contact |
That which exists in nature in multiples, we call poly-existentials. That which exists in nature in singular, we call mono-existentials. All material objects exist in singular and are mono-existentials. Ideas, information and knowledge exist in nature in multiples – not in singular. Ideas, Information and knowledge are poly-existentials. Much of our world is actually a mixture of mono-existentials and poly-existentials, which we call mixed-existentials.
In this document we analyze the topic of Intellectual Property (IP) from a new perspective. The topic of monopolistic ownership oriented restriction of poly-existentials and Western Intellectual Property Rights (IPR) are one and the same. Yet, the concept and terminology of poly-existentials has not appeared in prior discussions of this topic. This is the very first time that the concept and the word “poly-existentials” are being introduced.
The traditional perspective on Intellectual Property is that, it is debatable. Some good arguments have been made in its favor and some good arguments have been made opposing it. Some are for it and some are against it. It is perceived to be economically more profitable to be for it, than to be against it. So, in the West, a whole lot more people are in its favor.
The model of poly-existence makes it easy to prove that the concept of Intellectual Property is erroneous. This proof is based on logic that is rooted in nature of existence and nature of possession and the requirement for ownership to be in harmony with nature of possession and existence. Unlike other writings on this subject, we do not consider this as part of any debate. In this document we prove that the basic concepts of Intellectual Property are invalid.
The IPR regime is about extending the model and concept of ownership of mono-existentials to the realm of poly-existentials by creating artificial scarcity. This is against the nature of poly-existence.
Ownership of poly-existentials impacts their manner-of-existence towards being monopolistically controlled and towards becoming internally opaque. Monopolistic oriented restriction of poly-existentials has ramifications on autonomy and privacy of the individual and health of societies. Natural dynamics of Western IP restrictions result in reduced autonomy and privacy of the individual and result in transfer of more power to corporations and Corpocracy. Any digital ecosystem that is rooted in Western IPR puts humanity in danger. A moral alternative to the American proprietary digital ecosystem (Internet as we know it today) is called for.
The first part of this document is concerned with ontology of poly-existentials. We construct the “Poly-Existentials Reference Model” in order to analyze the nature of what IP restricts. Poly-existentials are naturally un-scarce and naturally multi-possessable and naturally un-territorial. Therefore poly-existentials are unownable. Western IP regime is about ownership (monopolistic restriction) of poly-existentials. The concept of poly-existence through the poly-existentials reference model makes the fraudulence of Western IPR regime clear and obvious.
This first part is also available as a standalone document in:
Poly-Existentials Reference Model
A Framework For Mapping Of
The Western Intellectual Property Model To Poly-Existentials
http://mohsen.1.banan.byname.net/PLPC/120068 — [10]
In the second part of this document, we engage in discrediting of the IPR regime through debunking the arguments that have been put forward in its support and we address the false beliefs surrounding Western consensuses. We also put on the table the character of those who originated it and who are pushing it. Westerners are vested in their IPR regime. It is not in their interest to understand the invalidity of IPR. We point out that when a given society gets its fundamental ownership rules wrong, the consequences are severe. When most of the world gets its fundamental ownership rules wrong, the consequences are catastrophic.
This second part is also available as a standalone document in:
Debunking Myth Of Western Intelectual Property Rights Regime
Based On The Poly-Existentials Reference Model
http://mohsen.1.banan.byname.net/PLPC/120069 — [9]
The third part of this document is about solutions and cures. We advocate full rejection of the Western IPR regime. We then advance a specific replacement strategy which includes societal and global governance models that require halaal manner-of-existence of poly-existentials. We then propose construction of a complete ethics oriented digital ecosystem which has autonomy and privacy of the individual at its core. We then introduce a starting point for such a digital ecosystem called: The Libre-Halaal ByStar Digital Ecosystem. Finally we postulate a set of societal strategies that in theory can cure Eastern societies and do an economic number on Western IPR vulnerabilities.
This document is vast in scope and in ambition. And, this generally public version is just a beginning which should be considered a draft. The first and second part are complete enough to deserve scrutiny. The third part is incomplete but has enough material to convey its intent and direction. Throughout these three parts, our main goal is to underscore the importance of this topic and to agitate towards further discussions.
A thesis of this document is that poly-existentials are unownable. Poly-existentials cannot be personal property.
Our analysis revolves around the relationships among:
Existence and possession are aspects of nature, but ownership is a human construct. Ownership, as man made rules, can in theory be anything. In that sense, anything and everything is ownable. We then draw a distinction between “proper ownership rules” and “improper ownership rules”. We consider proper ownership rules as those which are in harmony with existence and possession aspects of nature and which result in enduring amelioration of society and humanity. An acknowledged recent Western improper ownership rule is Americans’ ownership rules for Africans as slaves. Existence of humans as equals makes them unownable. It is in this context that we consider poly-existentials as ownable or unownable.
To a certain extent, each society’s ownership rules reflect that society’s values and character. Intellectual Property as ownership rules represents the American and Western model for governance of poly-existentials. Since for Americans, IP is directly sourced from the U.S. Constitution and since analysis of ownership involves both the governed (poly-existentials) and the governor, the American character is on the table. We therefore need to fully consider it within our scope to analyze and understand why these people (Americans) have come up with these ownership rules (IP).
Ownership rules exisit to resolve conflicts and to improve order in society. Main ownability requirements are the following:
The nature of poly-existentials violates these requirements:
Poly-existentials are therfore unownable.
Western Intellectual Property Rights regime is an umbrella misnomer to cover the following branches of US and Western laws:
Copyright, patent and trademark provide for ownership oriented monopolistic restrictions of poly-existentials. Each of these branches of Western law directly map to different forms of monopolistic restriction and ownership of different aspects of certain types of poly-existentials.
Since poly-existentials are unownable; copyright, patent and trademark laws as individual branches of law and collectively as Intellectual Property Rights regime are therefore invalid.
Ramifications of incorrect ownership laws can put societies and humanity at risk.
The context of mono-existence is inherently local. The context of poly-existence is inherently un-territorial, global and universal.
This document is in Globish. It is not in conventional Anglo-American English.
See the document titled “Introducing Globish into Globish” [4] for a description of Globish. That document also includes references to other specific words and concepts relevant to this document. Briefly, Globish (mixture of Glob-al and Engl-ish) is the language that a Chinese may use to communicate with a Brazilian.
The intended audience for this document is all of humanity.
Some of the concepts developed in this document stand separate from American and Western values. Some of these concepts specifically reject American and Western values. Western readers need to pay extra attention, as many of their assumptions are likely not ours.
So-called Intellectual Property Rights (patent, copyright and trademark laws) are fundamentally Western concepts. They are primarily rooted in the American, English, French and European cultures. Much of our audience has not had these beliefs and should not permit these corrupt beliefs to enter their cultures. That segment of our audience that has patent and copyright traditions in their culture and their belief system need to recognize that these beliefs are by no means universal.
Intellectual Property Rights regime is a set of societal rules. IPR regime is a Western construct. The concepts and vocabulary of IPR are Western and are targeted towards justification, protections, promotion and propagation of the Western IPR regime.
The basis of analysis of this document is Eastern. Many of the concepts that we use to invalidate Western IPR regime are not rooted in Anglo-American English. Through out this document, there are also a number of important words and concepts that we use in their Globish sense and not in the Anglo-American English (Western) sense.
The concepts behind these words, to a large extent, have directed our analysis and as such are key to understanding this document. Recognizing the specific contexts for our use of these words is essential for understanding our exposition. Here we provide a short list of some of the key words and concepts that are essential for our exposition.
In the document titled:
Introducing Convivial Into Globish
http://mohsen.banan.1.byname.net/PLPC/120037 — [1]
we introduce the term "Convivial" into Globish.
Briefly, in Illich’s words:
To the degree that an individual masters his tools, he can invest the world with his meaning; to the degree that he is mastered by his tools, the shape of the tool determines his own self-image. Convivial tools are those which give each person who uses them the greatest opportunity to enrich the environment with the fruits of his or her vision. Industrial tools deny this possibility to those who use them and they allow their designers to determine the meaning and expectations of others.
Western IPR model of poly-existentials leads to industriality of tools where the tool maker is more in charge.
The Libre-Halaal model of poly-existentials leads to conviviality of tools where the tool user is more in charge.
We expand on this in the Section titled “Tools For Conviviality”.
In Globish, philosophical halaal is “manifestation” of “moral sensibilities” relevant to a specific topic where “the set of actions” map to “right.”
We use the words halaal and haraam as vehicles for expression of ethics and morality as we have formally defined them in:
Introducing Halaal and Haraam into Globish
Based on Moral Philosophy of Abstract Halaal
And Defining The Libre-Halaal Label
معرفیِ دنیاییِ حلال و حرام
و تعریفِ حلالْ−وجودیِ چند وجودیها
http://mohsen.1.banan.byname.net/PLPC/120039 — [3]
A particular focus of this document is to identify halaal and haraam manner-of-existence of poly-existentials. We conclude that the Western IPR regime leads to the haraam manner-of-existence of poly-existentials.
We elaborate on this in a Section titled “Proper Governance Of Poly-Existentials: Halaal And HaraamManner Of Poly-Existence”.
In a Section titled “The Libre-Halaal Label”, we expand on this.
In a Section titled “In Search Of The Right Label For Correct Manner-Of-Existence Of Software”, we describe why Libre-Halaal is superior to “Free Software”, “Open Source”, and other FLOSS attempts at labeling Halaal manner-of-existence of software (and other poly-existentials).
Some of the important concepts that the Western sphere of consensus focuses on are: supremacy of markets, economics, competition, dominance, exploitation and freedoms of the individual and the corporation and separation of religion from governance.
Some of the important concepts that the Eastern sphere of consensus focuses on are: supremacy of family and society, social cohesion, societal harmony, ethics, morality and sanctity of speech and the intertwinedness of religion and governance.
The fundamental difference in perspective between East and West is in the context of individual and society. An Eastern Iranian may communicate this to a Western American with the following phrases: “The largest societal unit in America is the individual. The smallest societal unit in Iran is the family”
East and West have been engaged in “Models Wars”. The West considers its models as universal and has been imposing them on the East. Some Eastern societies have been resisting. Resisting the Western IPR regime is an important battle ground in these Models Wars.
We expand on this in “Introducing East and West into Globish”, [2].
Our use of the word “Orientalism” is in the context of Edward Saeid’s book titled “Orientalism” [13].
The history of Orientalism has led to a false belief by Westerners that the Western IPR regime is universal.
West-toxication represents the impact of Orientalism on some Easterners which has led to their belief that Western model is superior to the Eastern model in almost all respects.
We use the word west-toxication in the context that Jalaal Al-Ahamad introduced it in his Gharbzadegi book in 1966 [12].
History of West-toxication has led some Easterners to believe that the Western IPR regime is universal, because it is Western.
We expand on this in a Section titled “Western IPR Regime: An instrument of neo-colonialism”.
In Globish, Americanism is the model of self-toxication «خود زدگی» of economic creatures existing in an industrial context.
The Globish’s Americanism contrasts against the English’s Americanism in humanity’s context.
We identify americanism as the root of the Western IPR problem.
We expand on this in a Section titled “Americanism: Root Of The Western IPR Problem”.
In Globish, we reject all of that. The entirety of what some call “Intellectual Property Rights” is a rigged misnomer. Western copyright and patent artificial laws are not about property or rights or intellectuality.
For this reason we usually prefix IPR with “Western” and “so-called.”
We expand on this in a Section titled “So-Called Western Intellectual Property Rights: A Rigged Misnomer”.
Understanding of poly-existence plus the above concepts and words, very simply and naturally lead to the obvious recognition of fraudulence of the Western IPR regime. Yet, because it is not in the interest of many to recognize fraudulence of the Western IPR regime we need to apply more than just logic. Through out this document we further develop the above concepts for those who have difficulty putting aside their interests in favor of logic and reason. Many of the these concepts resonates in the East and are suppressed by the West.
These permit us to change the center of gravity of this topic from individualism and economics to ethics and harmony with nature.
The primary URL for this document is: http://mohsen.1.banan.byname.net/PLPC/120033. The pdf format is authoritative.
Distribution of this document is unrestricted. We encourage you to forward it to others.
Many of the concepts that we present in this document are non-conventional and perhaps new. This is the very first time that a categorization of the world with the labels of Mono-Existentials and Poly-Existentials is being introduced. And it is the first time that the Western IPR regime is being viewed as a mapping onto restriction of poly-existentials.
As such, some of what is being presented is in early stages of being understood. This document is evolving and should be considered a draft – we plan to follow up with further updates and enhancements. Yet, the core concepts have been adequately developed and our conclusions are correct. Therefore, this revision of the document can be envisaged ready for early considerations.
Additionally, our analysis has had to be very multi-disciplinary. So we have had to dabbled in chemistry, physics, biology, information theory, computer science, logic, philosophy, ethics, theology, sociology, law and economics. Clearly we are not experts in all of these fields.
We can benefit from your feedback. Please let us know your thoughts. You can send us your comments and criticisms via the URL http://mohsen.1.banan.byname.net/contact, or by email to plpc120033@mohsen.1.banan.byname.net.
We are interested in having translations of this document in other languages. A summary in Persian (Farsi) is available in: http://mohsen.banan.1.byname.net/PLPC/120071. Please let us know if you wish to assist with translations of this document.
We thank you for your assistance.
We are software engineers. The Western IPR regime has crippled our profession by prohibiting collaboration and transferring more power to corporate businessmen. This has led to dominance of internally opaque software and internally opaque internet services. Internally opaque software and internally internet services foster a competitive model which stifle engineering collaboration. Internally opaque software and internally opaque internet services in turn lead to deterioration of individual’s autonomy and privacy.
Our profession, software and internet engineering, has a responsibility to society and we have a responsibility to our profession. It is towards fulfillment of our responsibilities to our profession and our profession’s responsibility to society and humanity that we have prepared this document.
Because we have been close to writing of software and creation of internet services, we understand the ramifications of the Western IPR regime better than many others. Dynamics of the Western IPR regime are such that they put society and humanity at risk.
We have concluded that the Western IPR regime is a colossal mistake.
Let’s say that based on solid logic we could demonstrate that the bases for establishment of IPR regime is fundamentally wrong and that IPR regime results in serious harm to society and humanity. What impact would that have? Contemporary global mistakes often result in entrenched vested interests. Many powerful people and entities are deeply vested in Western IPR. Such deep economic interests often prevent people’s willingness to hear and follow basic logic.
The Western IPR regime is a sphere of consensus that can not be changed based on logic and reason alone. Therefore, the scope and purpose of this document can not be limited to logic and reason alone.
The consequences of the IPR Western ownership mistake are even more grave than the previous Western ownership mistake – that of slavery of Africans by Americans based on formal Western laws of ownership of human beings. This time ramifications of the mistake are broader than just America or the West, they put all of humanity in danger.
Ramifications and harm of the Western IPR regime are far broader than they are generally understood. Western IPR regime indirectly impacts the individual’s autonomy and privacy and distorts the relationship between individuals and corporation.
In this document we address much of what surrounds IPR. Our goal is to open the subject wide towards tangible results.
We frame the question of correct governance of poly-existentials in their halaal and haraam manner-of-existence.
Definition Of The Libre-Halaal Software Label
Defining Halaal Manner-Of-Existence Of Software
http://www.by-star.net/PLPC/180044 — [6]
and also at the web site:
http://www.halaalsoftware.org
we provide definitional criteria for halaal manner-of-existence of software.
Definition Of The Libre-Halaal Internet Services Label
Defining Halaal Manner-Of-Existence Of Internet Application Services
A non-proprietary model for delivery of Internet services
http://www.by-star.net/PLPC/180045 — [5]
and also at the web site:
http://www.libreservices.org
we provide definitional criteria for halaal manner-of-existence of internet services.
In a document titled:
The Libre-Halaal ByStar Digital Ecosystem
A Unified and Non-Proprietary Model For Autonomous Internet Services
A Moral Alternative To The Proprietary American Digital Ecosystem
http://www.by-star.net/PLPC/180016 — [7]
and also at the web site:
http://www.by-star.net
which is partially reproduced in a Chapter titled “Tangible Cure: The Libre-Halaal ByStar Digital Ecosystem”. we describe the contours of a cure.
In a Chapter titled “Global Poly-Existential And Mixed-Existential Capitalism”, we analyze and distinguish dynamics of Mono-Existential Capitalism vs Poly-Existential Capitalism.
In a document titled:
The By* Federation of Autonomous Libre Services
An Inversion to Proprietary Internet Services Model
An Open Business Plan
http://www.by-star.net/PLPC/180014 — [11]
and also in the web site:
http://www.neda.com/strategicVision/businessPlan
we present an Open Business Plan towards making ByStar widespread.
In the Western context in general and in the American context in particular, in this domain, at best such a goal is academic.
In the Eastern context in general and in the Iranian context in particular, with these understandings, we believe it is possible to move towards governance of poly-existentials based on their halaal manner-of-existence.
To this end, in a Chapter titled “Theoretical Eastern Societal Cures”, we have proposed a set of software and internet services national policies for Iran that are equally applicable to other Eastern societies.
Each part of this document has a particular tone and a specific style. The parts that introduce the concept and terminology of nature of poly-existentials are scholarly, formal, logic based, and persuasion oriented.
The parts that deal with exposure of the Western IPR regime mistake are by choice inflammatory and aggressive. Our philosophical analysis is that nature of poly-existentials leads to the natural right to copy and the natural right to apply knowledge without any monopoly oriented restrictions. This in turn naturally leads to full rejection of the restrictive IPR regime. The context of poly-existentials is inherently universal. It is the responsibility of those who wish to restrict our (humans) natural rights, to make a case for their model. The burden of proof is on them not on us.
A meaningful case for IPR has never been made. So, where appropriate we mock and we ridicule the Western status quo. We frequently toy with the self-absorption and overly individualistic aspects of Western cultures. Logic and persuasion alone are ineffective against the entrenched Western IPR disease. Exposure of the Western IPR regime mistake also involves the clarification that IPR is a Western and mostly American mistake. As such our tone may come across as anti-American and anti-Western. Western readers need to recognize that the intended audience of this document is all of humanity and that the scope of this topic is all of humanity. The nature of this topic is inherently global.
The purpose and scope of this document is not limited to analysis of Western IPR disease. We also offer theoretical recipes for cures. The parts of this document that deal with the cure, occasionally go beyond persuasion and are prophetic. The cure part is broken into Western cures and Eastern cures – each with their own flavor.
Content of this document reflects our independent thoughts. We have not received any funding for producing this document. We have not written this document in the traditional context of Western IPR where the result of our work are expected to bring economic rewards. We have something to say and we want others to read it and discuss it – towards the progress of science and useful arts. Verbatim copying of this poly-existential is unrestricted. We believe that the collaborative model is the one which motivates real engineers, real scientists and real artists.
We are law abiding citizens. We underscore the corrupt nature of Western IPR regime, but we do not advocate illegal or unauthorized copying in applicable territory. We advocate the abolishment of Western IPR regime. In the mean time, we encourage authors and inventors to subject their work to non-restrictive copyright and no patents or non-restrictive (defensive) patents in applicable territories. We advocate full rejection of the Western IPR regime in territories where they may be under consideration.
The anti-Americanist tone and our focus on curing Eastern societies is not towards a market oriented agenda. It is reality and logic that has taken us there. In an Appendix titled “About The Author”, we include our profile for those curious about the tone of this document.
Not only is this document a Libre-Halaal poly-existential, but it has been produced, published and distributed by pure Libre-Halaal Software and Libre-Halaal Internet Services. In an Appendix titled “Colophon”, we provide a summary of how purely Libre-Halaal convivial tools can produce results that surpass their Proprietary-Haraam competitors.
Our primary focus in this document is governance of poly-existentials. Therefore, both the governed (poly-existentials) and the governor (economic creatures vs humans) need to be subjects of our analysis. In the context of governorship, throughout this document, in parallel with the model of poly-existence, we draw a clear and explicit distinction between being an economic creature and being a human.
In a sense then, you are part of the governorship. Governance of poly-existentials by humans for humanity would be distinct and different from governance of poly-existentials by economic creatures for economic creatures. We have a choice. Ownership is a human construct. We are in charge.
Americanism as a model for self-toxicated economic creature existing in an industrial context has led to the creation of the artificial competition oriented Western Intellectual Property Rights regime. Humanism as a model for humans living in societies leads to the natural collaboration oriented Libre-Halaal poly-existential regime. Americanism vs Humanism lies at the center of the conflict for governance of manner-of-existence of poly-existentials.
Where do you fit in all of this? Are you a paticipant? Or are you just an observer? Are you an “Intellectual Worker”? Do you “own” any patents or copyright? Are you an economic creature or, are you a human? Do you have any responsibilities in these regards?
By an “Intellectual Worker”, we are referring to those involved in production, organization and propagation of poly-existentials. Professions related to: software, engineering, teaching, research, arts, journalism, medicine, pharmacy, plant biology, etc. – all involve production or propagation of poly-existentials. As a medical doctor, when you prescribe patented medications, you are propagating patents. As a software engineer working for the likes of Microsoft, when you write code, you are producing copyrighted material. Today, large parts of many societies are intellectual workers. Enlarging of numbers of intellectual workers throughout the world is a clear trend.
It is very convenient for intelectuall workers to assume the validity of IP and become accomplices. Status quo is often very profitable for intelectuall workers. It may well not be in your economic interest to understand or to advocate that the basic concept of Intellectual Propoerty Rights is wrong.
If you are an intellectual worker, you are a participant. And if you are not just an economic creature, as a human, you have responsibilities.
Your responsibilities start by being willing to understand – even when it may not be in your economic interest to understand.
It could well be the case that you, on your own, can not do much to impact the situation. But, collectively we can.
The picture that we are drawing in this document is vast in scope and in ambition. Thus far, the entire formulation and development has been done by a very small team. Much of our work and much of our writing is in its early stages of evolution.
These efforts can only be significant if participation and usage is widespread and if collaborative development involves many. We have created many venues to facilitate collaboration. And now we ask you, to assist us in making this work widespread.
As a first step, we ask you to review what we have written and give us your critique. If you think our work has merit, we also ask you to help us in spreading the word. Please feel welcome to further distribute this document where appropriate.
We invite you to assist in the collaborative development of Libre-Halaal Software and Libre-Halaal Internet Services. And we encourage you to avoid use of all Proprietary-Haraam software, and Proprietary-Haraam internet services.
Beyond this important intellectual contribution, we also invite you to participate with action as appropriate in the context of your own professional domain and in your own societal context.
Our invitation to you spans three aspects of what we present in this document.
In the context of our goal to demonstrate that Western IPR is a mistake, our intended audience is all of humanity.
We believe that after reading this document and based on the understanding of poly-existentials, any independent thinker would conclude that the Western IPR regime should be abolished. However, many are vested in the IPR regime and can not read this document as independent thinkers.
So, we have a battle in our hand. And we ask for your assistance.
Please distribute this document as widely as possible, particularly amongst regulatory entities, legislators and the press within your society.
In a Part titled “Cure: Abolition Of Western IPR Regime”, replacement for the Western IPR regime. We then say that our initial focus should be the creation of a Libre-Halaal Digital Ecosystem.
In a Chapter titled “Tangible Cure: The Libre-Halaal ByStar Digital Ecosystem”,
we then introduce:
The
Libre-Halaal ByStar Digital Ecosystem, as a moral and ethical alternative to the
proprietary American digital ecosystem. An overview of this is also
provided in [7], available on-line at:
http://www.by-star.net/PLPC/180016 and also at: http://www.by-star.net/.
We invite you to participate in propagation of ByStar.
Information for Joining ByStar is provided in Section .
If you are a qualified investor, we invite you to take a look at our Open Business Plan at http://www.neda.com/strategicVision/businessPlan. Consider ramifications of participating in something this huge and this proper!
In a Chapter titled “Theoretical Eastern Societal Cures”, we say that there is no hope for a societal cure for Western societies and that we should focus on Eastern societies. We then focus on Iran as a case study.
As an Easterner, we invite you to distribute this document widely amongst academics and policy makers of your Eastern societies.
As a Muslim, ask the opinion of your source of imitation about halaal manner-of-existence of poly-existentials.
In every possible way reject the current Western IPR regime which has brought us the current Western proprietary-haraam manner-of-existence of poly-existentials.