Anybody watch the Season 2 Premiere of this cool show?! Well, if you didn’t this post may be a bit of a spoiler, but not much. For those of you who have not seen the show yet, here is a brief summary: Orphan Black is a Canadian science fiction television series starring Tatiana Maslany as several identical women who are revealed to be clones. The series focuses on Sarah Manning, a woman who assumes the identity of her clone, Elizabeth (Beth) Childs, after witnessing Beth’s suicide. The series raises issues about the moral and ethical implications of human cloning and its effect on issues of personal identity.
From an entertainment perspective my respect goes out to the lead actress, Tatiana Maslany, who plays multiple roles including a streetsmart grifter (Sarah), a manic suburban mom (Alison), a pot-smoking lesbian scientist (Cosima) and a feral Russian assassin (Helena) among others. For those of you who have not seen the show (yet), the main character is Sarah, who is partnered with Alison and Cosima, pooling their collective resources to figure out who made them and who is trying to kill them off. Maslany’s award-worthy performances are often done playing opposite herself, whether in shootouts or comedic banter. But the reason I’m writing about Orphan Black on Knockoff Report is the cloning issue. On the surface, cloning can be an interesting topic in the IP debate.
The thing that made me think hard about this wasn’t the epically cool first season. It was this week’s Season 2 premiere that really brought out the IP geek in me. The scientist, Cosima, is investigating the codes embedded in their DNA and cracks it. Turns out, embedded in her DNA, and the rest of her clone sisters is a patent notice. Her quote, “We’re property. They patented us.” was the topic of this episode which was entitled “Personal Property”. As interesting as this seems, this is still not why Rob Holmes, an anticounterfeiting expert and enthusiast, was drawn to write about this. Here is the reason: I admit I do not know the outcome of the entire series and this is where speculation comes in. But, assuming one of the individuals is an original… are the patent owners actually counterfeiters? I say yes. If I owned the patent for a duplication device, it would not give me rights over the items I copy. Only rights overs the duplication process. A patent is a grant of ownership over a specific process. Patents do not protect images, words or content. This show is very good and I hope it goes on for many seasons. If this is the case, we will not know some of those answers for years to come. This means my actual argument may not even be valid until perhaps more seasons pass. Is there an original? Was the original created, or born? But, as an IP geek, this is fun stuff and will keep us thinking for many years to come.
Now, I’m going to finish my coffee.
IPCybercrime © 2014 - All Rights Reserved