Summary of the Core Content
This article criticizes the absurd behavior of international luxury brands for registering the “four-petaled symmetrical flower” pattern, which has been widely present in Chinese ancient culture since ancient times, as their exclusive intellectual property. It points out that this design is a public cultural heritage that our ancestors have used for tens of thousands of years, and that capital’s monopoly on it essentially exploits the Western intellectual property system to extract profits from consumers. The article calls on us to break free from Western-dominated rules and establish our own cultural confidence and intellectual property system, so that Chinese traditional designs and industrial products can gain their rightful international recognition.
Breakdown and Interpretation
1. The Four-Petaled Flower Pattern: A “Common Decorative Element” Used by Our Ancestors for Tens of Thousands of Years
Do you think this four-petaled flower is an “original design” of luxury brands? Wrong! It was a common pattern in ancient China:
- With a history dating back to the Neolithic Age: Standard four-petaled flowers (with the characteristic shape resembling a persimmon stalk) have been found on pottery from the Nanjing Museum, dating back 10,000 to 4,000 years. They are also frequently depicted on Shang and Zhou dynasty bronzes, Qin and Han dynasty tiles, and bronze mirrors, making them one of the most beloved decorative elements of ancient times.
- Ubiquitous in daily life: In northern China, this pattern could be found on old toilet windows, courtyard walls, and stairwells, created by bricklayers for its practicality, material savings, and good ventilation—a testament to the practical wisdom of our ancestors.
- Cultural significance: The ancient called it the “Flower of the Celestial Dome,” symbolizing the four directions of the universe (the Four Symbols). When rotated and overlapped, it formed an eight-petaled pattern, which was an abstract representation of the Eight Trigrams. Even the eight-petaled flowers carved on Eastern Han dynasty tombstones corresponded to the Nine Palaces celestial constellation—this is not some brand’s “creativity”; rather, it reflects our ancestors’ understanding of the cosmos!
2. The Absurdity of Capital Registering Ordinary Patterns
The article uses several poignant metaphors to highlight the absurdity of this monopolistic behavior:
- If they could register the cross-shaped symbol, would they sue all churches in the world for copyright fees?
- If they registered the round shape, would they sue football, basketball, the sun, or even human heads?
The four-petaled flower is a public cultural heritage, just like air and water—something that everyone shares. Capital turning it into “exclusive property” is essentially taking public wealth and packaging it as a “luxury good” to profit from consumers. Isn’t this no different from a robber stealing your belongings and then selling them back to you at a higher price?
3. The “Robber Logic” of the Western Intellectual Property System
Some might argue, “Why should we accept the rules they set?” But the article exposes the true nature of this logic:
- The rules were made by them: The Western intellectual property system is a product of the colonial era, designed by the powerful to monopolize resources. By registering a pattern that our ancestors have used for thousands of years, these brands claim that anyone using it is infringing on their rights— isn’t that pure robbery?
- Why should we accept this injustice? These luxury brands lack core technologies to threaten us; they rely on the tactic of “registering first.” Should we forever submit to someone else’s rules?
4. What Should We Do? Build Cultural Confidence and Establish Our Own “Voice”
The article offers a clear direction:
- Our industrial strength is already formidable: China is the world’s largest industrial country, and no one can do without Chinese-made goods. However, our cultural status has not yet matched our economic power.
- Liberal arts students need to stand up: We should market Chinese ordinary products as luxury items and assert that these traditional designs have always belonged to us (for example, the four-petaled flower). We should confidently declare, “This is our cultural heritage; your registration is meaningless.”
- Establish our own system: International rules without our participation are not truly global standards. The future world should be governed by our culture and our own rules!
Conclusion
This article is not just a critique of luxury brands; it is also a call for us to break free from Western cultural hegemony. The treasures left by our ancestors cannot be arbitrarily taken by capital, and our cultural confidence should not be confined by foreign regulations. In the future, we must show the world that Chinese traditional designs are the true “luxuries”!