His answer was something that I liked, though he didn't look that happy saying it. And, to honour a promise to an LFC official concerned that both the question and response were too sensitive, I have always kept Gerrard's reply to myself.

The issue of a football team's copyright is a far cry from the life and death matter of drug patents, but the ongoing showdown between Thailand and the United States over intellectual property rights to drugs brought back that brief encounter.

In today's world, Gerrard, as a human being, as his club's ambassador and as someone wearing most of the famous global brands from head to toe, simply cannot give the same answer to that question. To play the part of champion of the poor is too easy - so is preaching the danger that piracy can inflict terrible woe on capitalism or human innovation.

Both sides have strong arguments. Shouldn't drugs, especially life-saving ones, be classified in the same categories as air, food and shelter, something all human beings should have equal access to if it is not beyond the limit of fellow human beings to share?

Yes, ideally. But in the real world, demands are endless and unless you motivate the suppliers with sufficient incentives, they will stop producing and the whole issue could easily become a case of suicidal idealism.

The bottom line comes down to who you are and who you represent. As a scientist you will want the product of your education and intelligence to benefit all mankind. But a scientist needs funding, and if you are funding that scientist you will want to make sure you get something in return.

If you are an activist, you will want to make sure that the "something in return" is not so obscene that it defeats the original purpose of the invention, in this case medicine.

It's another case of an imperfect world. What's most disturbing is the question of whether we are now capable of making it perfect.

All we know is that great and valuable innovations can be copied - and the copying can be a desperate but worthwhile measure in desperate times.

What we don't know is exactly how the "theft" can affect the world in the long run. Drug companies have painted a gloomy picture of new ideas running dry, but world history shows that medical revolutions can also be influenced by truly noble aspirations.

Thailand, for practical reasons, wants to copy HIV/Aids drugs, as well as some medicines for heart disease. The resulting conflict with the United States has degenerated into something of a smear campaign and each side has accused the other of lacking ethics and compassion.

Abbot, the US drug firm in question, has drawn criticism for reportedly planning to withhold the marketing of a heat-stable form of the HIV/Aids drug as a punitive measure. The Thai government, meanwhile, is being accused of violating patents for its own benefit and, being allegedly poorly equipped, putting the lives of Thai citizens at risk.

When human lives are at stake, it's sad that two parties responsible for saving them are virtually calling each other murderers.

The simple matter of how we can make drugs affordable for the people who need them most and, at the same time, give the suppliers enough incentive to carry on researching and manufacturing them, has been clouded.

As far as this issue is concerned, too many people are doing the right things for the wrong reasons, or doing the wrong things for the right (legal) reasons, or simply doing the wrong things for the wrong reasons.

Do Thai kids supporting Liverpool or Manchester United or any other football team have the right to be "happy" by wearing cheap, fake jerseys? I guess all of us agree that there's little wrong with that.

But in this world where everything is attached to copyrights or intellectual property rights, the simplicity ends there. Fortunately, those kids won't die if fake shirts are taken off the streets or if the Thai authorities and the football clubs spend an eternity squabbling.

Do dying patients all deserve immediate access to affordable drugs, given that the world is now capable of producing them - anywhere, any time and in an instant?

At a time when "democracy" and "human rights" are supposed to be more indomitable than ever, and at a time when our world is richer and better equipped than ever, it's just strange that this still has to be a question.

Tulsathit Taptim