Intellectual Property: Is it a necessity?

[Terxpahseyton]

I'm not an expert on it, but this articles by Dean Baker should help illuminate the issue:
http://www.paecon.net/PAEReview/issue32/Baker32.htm

It does in so far as that you don't seem to have thought through your claim if that is what you bring forth as its justification. The article makes an intriguing case against medical patents, I must say that, but that is obviously due to the nature of medical research. Things will look very different in other industries.
That is comparable to how planned economics often suck, but at times can also excel.

http://forums.civfanatics.com/downloads.php

Kind of proving my point, as those mods rest on all the coding and design work done for Civ4 which rests on intellectual property. If you are willing to create while waving your intellectual property rights (be it out of goodness or because Firaxis forces you), you of course can. Intellectual property is not a mandate after all, not an inalienable right. And it is to be praised if you make your intellectual output freely available (we are all doing it on this board). The point is - mutual competition is the determining force of the economy and with that to a large degree of society. And as long as that is so, the abolishment of intellectual property is madness.
But you are welcome to propose alternative economic models which allow for a lack of intellectual property.

 

[aronnax]

So should Intellectual property be protected only if the person violating is using it for profit?

The part of me that does not want to wait 9 months for US television shows and never for UK ones to reach Singapore, feels that the act of distribution without profit should be allowed.
After all, TV shows and movies have been able to survive the impact of online downloads, albeit slightly dented.

However, the music industry will definitely collapse if this was allowed.

The gaming industry would suffer a big hit but I actually think that video game companies can recover if they implement enough precautions. I think the reason why Paradox Interactive games are so successful is because of their modding forums which you cannot browse without registering your game.

 

[warpus]

We do need intellectual property laws, but they need to contain a balance between creator rights & fair use customer rights.

They shouldn't be used to prop up outdated business models - if they're outdated, let them fail.

Intellectual property entering the public domain needs to be reformed too. They've been pushing the date back further and further - they need to bring it back to what it initially was years ago.

 

[Monsterzuma]

It does in so far as that you don't seem to have thought through your claim if that is what you bring forth as its justification. The article makes an intriguing case against medical patents, I must say that, but that is obviously due to the nature of medical research. Things will look very different in other industries.
That is comparable to how planned economics often suck, but at times can also excel.

the point is exactly that creating artificial scarcity "sucks" so bad that even planned economics looks good by comparison.

I don't see what differentiates medical research from other forms of research/creative work in a way that invalidates using a common approach to their funding.

 

[Terxpahseyton]

I don't see what differentiates medical research from other forms of research/creative work in a way that invalidates using a common approach to their funding.

Medical research is extraordinary complicated and risky and hence extraordinary unattractive to the private market. That's pretty much it. Do some thinking, I am confident you will see why.
And if you have managed that, you will surely also realize why that makes medical research a very special patient (hint: It's because the free market sucks at it).
In other areas the free market doesn't suck so bad, because innovation is less risky and complicated. And once the free market is doing a decent job, a restriction of this job by requiring a public merit of innovation would be an organizational nightmare, for the same basic reasons centrally planned economies can be an organizational nightmare.

 

[IdiotsOpposite]

I believe that some level of IP protection is necessary. I do not believe that such bills as DMCA, SOPA, PIPA, and ACTA are the way to go.

 

[innonimatu]

Te only protection creators need is recognition, and that is covered under the laws against fraud and misrepresentation. the so-called "intellectual property" laws were always about rent-seeking and (sometimes) also censorship on the cheap for the state.

The point is - mutual competition is the determining force of the economy and with that to a large degree of society. And as long as that is so, the abolishment of intellectual property is madness.
But you are welcome to propose alternative economic models which allow for a lack of intellectual property.

Predictably, I'm going to absolutely disagree with this. I won't even argue about the competition as the main driving force bit, I'll accept it as a given for the purpose of this discussion. The obvious question remains:why are monopoly rights on ideas and technology necessary in that context? Isn't competition supposed to produce better results under a free exchange of ideas, through the unfettered use of new technology?

What you fear is that one company would develop something, and another copy it. I'll say: that would be a good thing! Not to copy a good thing, a good process or a good product, is wasteful. Suppose a company now invented "the wheel"; reinventing the wheel in a thousand different ways just to evade a patent on the wheel is wasteful. Let companies pour less resources into making copies, instead of pouring them into making slightly different and probably inferior stuff. That means more resources left for investment on really original stuff. Let prices be lowered faster by scale and efficiency gains by eliminating managed artificial scarcity.

And you will answer, predictably, that under these conditions the original company would not have invented the wheel in the first place, because the investment would not have been recouped.
But why was the investment high in the first place? Was the company doing fundamental research from scratch? How many actually do that? No, states do that. The high cost of research is, ironically, more and more tied, these days, to... patents! Patents held by others, and the need to acquire them or get around them. Fear of litigation. And its costs when it happens. Development can be incremental, and pay off easily, even with competitors copying what you do. Because... you will also be copying their developments.

There are two kinds of innovation: the radical one, new fields being opened, and the incremental one.
Those doing incremental development would not be harmed in the least bit by eradicating patents. The rate of development would probably increase as barriers to experimenting (costs of accessory "IP" and fear of litigation) were removed and incremental developments became the distinguishing factor among competing companies (they cannot be replicated by competitors overnight). The time window would be small, but it would be worth fighting for.
And those doing radical innovation would always have a considerable head start over any competition, because of what we call "business secrets". That doesn't mean they won't go down due to poor decisions, but it means that they have a confortable window of time to recouup investments. Most real innovators either become millionaires or fail because of lack of business skills. Not because of lack of "IP protection". In fact in every new area ever opened there was no "IP protection" to start with: software was more freely copied in the past and not patentable, genes were not patentable, chemistry in the late 19th/early 20th century quickly developed without patents, etc. Patents came in, in each of those cases, as established companies lobbied to lock out competitors from their market after having grown rich enough to buy the political influence necessary.

 

[Tahuti]

Medical research is extraordinary complicated and risky and hence extraordinary unattractive to the private market.

It's complicated because of medical patents. Patents create a cascade effect that makes research more expensive because certain innovations are likely to be based on existing patents that are still in force.

EDIT: I see Innonimatu beat me to it with a much more detailed explanation.

 

[BasketCase]

there are better ways to incentivize innovation than to create artificial scarcity. even tax funded public investment in innovation industries makes more sense.

That's a step backwards, for two reasons. First, the government doesn't have any incentive to invest wisely (because it's spending somebody else's money). Second, there's nothing stopping companies from simply telling you "oh, yes, we're trying to innovate but our experiments aren't working yet" while they hang around the water cooler and puff on cigarettes.

How do you allocate such investments properly (i.e. how to avoid the second problem)? By funding those companies that actually produce useful innovations. People need to be able to actually make a profit from good ideas. Nothing else really works.

 

[mrt144]

That's a step backwards, for two reasons. First, the government doesn't have any incentive to invest wisely (because it's spending somebody else's money). Second, there's nothing stopping companies from simply telling you "oh, yes, we're trying to innovate but our experiments aren't working yet" while they hang around the water cooler and puff on cigarettes.

How do you allocate such investments properly (i.e. how to avoid the second problem)? By funding those companies that actually produce useful innovations. People need to be able to actually make a profit from good ideas. Nothing else really works.

The government absolutely does has incentive - the good of the people. Which is why it all falls apart when you have people who find the existence of government contemptible in government.

Also, your second paragraph flies in the face of national laboratories. Come back when you've learned a thing or two about government and history.

 

[SS-18 ICBM]

In fact in every new area ever opened there was no "IP protection" to start with: software was more freely copied in the past and not patentable, genes were not patentable, chemistry in the late 19th/early 20th century quickly developed without patents, etc.

Working towards the next discovery or innovation back then wasn't that expensive either, so the potential gains from innovation mostly outweigh the costs of innovation which causes the effects of copycats to be less harmful. I do dislike gene patenting though.

 

[NickyJ]

I'm not that familiar with the differences between patents and IP, so I refrain from voting. That said, I think that products, such as video games, should be considered abandonware after the company that produced it goes bankrupt or otherwise disappears.

For example, let's use the Nascar Racing series. The company that created it went out of business in 2004. To me, that means that nobody is making profits from the game. In my opinion, that means it should be considered abandonware, and free to the public.

 

[aimeeandbeatles]

I'm not that familiar with the differences between patents and IP, so I refrain from voting. That said, I think that products, such as video games, should be considered abandonware after the company that produced it goes bankrupt or otherwise disappears.

For example, let's use the Nascar Racing series. The company that created it went out of business in 2004. To me, that means that nobody is making profits from the game. In my opinion, that means it should be considered abandonware, and free to the public.

Or if, otherwise, they stop selling it retail & supporting it. (Of course, except a massive rollback to Windows XP when Microsoft stops supporting it fully -- or has it already? -- and it becomes freely available. )

At times i think if you have the rights to something and refuse to put it out retail, people should be allowed to distribute copies -- for example, home videos that were released on VHS in 1985 but never re-released on DVD and are now only available pre-owned.

 

[cardgame]

So far as I'm aware, the only difference between patents and copyrights is that patents are generally in engineering or inventions, while copyrights apply solely to works of art and entertainment, etc.

Patents last for 20 years which is a reasonable time frame with which to make a profit; copyrights last 70 + the life of the author. Incredibly and infuriatingly long. I have voted accordingly.

 

[Zelig]

I'm not that familiar with the differences between patents and IP, so I refrain from voting. That said, I think that products, such as video games, should be considered abandonware after the company that produced it goes bankrupt or otherwise disappears.

For example, let's use the Nascar Racing series. The company that created it went out of business in 2004. To me, that means that nobody is making profits from the game. In my opinion, that means it should be considered abandonware, and free to the public.

So you think IP should be non-transferrable between companies?

 

[Earthling]

Yeah. It would suck to devote years of research and billions of dollars on a drug only to find competitors can sell your compound without having the same costs as you. Kind of a negative incentive to drug development, isn't it?

You guys didn't forget that intellectual property isn't just artistic works and entertainment, right?

It's also not useful for companies to hold thousands of patents on vague, basic concepts that cost millions of dollars of lawsuits to begin to sort out when anyone anywhere makes a product.

If anything it's patents as they exist today that need to go. For entire industries like software development or as you mentioned pharmaceuticals, patents are part of the cause of problems, not a solution. Various IP concerns drive high costs and unnecessary bureaucracy and it's not like in global trade the US has that much power to stop, say, China from ignoring all IP claims anyway. Having minor/reduced duration copyright for arts, entertainment, and trademarks in advertising and the like are ok. The real problem is just getting law enforcement to stop targeting minor, meaningless cases like a kid sharing music and keeping fair use robust. For real IP changes that would affect the global economy, abolishing patents and expanding publicly funded R&D where necessary would certainly be a reasonable way to go.

 

[NickyJ]

Or if, otherwise, they stop selling it retail & supporting it. (Of course, except a massive rollback to Windows XP when Microsoft stops supporting it fully -- or has it already? -- and it becomes freely available. )

No, as long as the company or it's new owner still exists and supports it, I think it should be illegal to redistribute it.[/QUOTE]

So far as I'm aware, the only difference between patents and copyrights is that patents are generally in engineering or inventions, while copyrights apply solely to works of art and entertainment, etc.

Patents last for 20 years which is a reasonable time frame with which to make a profit; copyrights last 70 + the life of the author. Incredibly and infuriatingly long. I have voted accordingly.

Thanks for the explanation! In that case, I voted for reducing the copyright duration and leaving patents alone.

So you think IP should be non-transferrable between companies?

Only if the new company still offers support or actually produces it.

 

[Zelig]

Only if the new company still offers support or actually produces it.

So the original company must continue to offer support or to produce something related to IP in order to keep the IP? How are you going to police an adequate level of support? Who gets the IP if a company doesn't offer adequate support?

What about IP where no support or production is required?

 

[Silurian]

So should Intellectual property be protected only if the person violating is using it for profit?

The part of me that does not want to wait 9 months for US television shows and never for UK ones to reach Singapore, feels that the act of distribution without profit should be allowed.
After all, TV shows and movies have been able to survive the impact of online downloads, albeit slightly dented.
.

UK TV shows are paid for by a Tax (BBC) or advertising revenues.
If you want to watch a TV program that I have paid to make you should buy it.
Programs like, Doctor Who, are expensive to make and if the BBC did not know it could make some money overseas it would not be able to make so many or would have to reduce the quality.

Would it be acceptable to get some product made in Singapore, distribute it for free in the UK and then say to the Singaporean supplier that we are not paying because we gave it away.

 

[Terxpahseyton]

It's complicated because of medical patents. Patents create a cascade effect that makes research more expensive because certain innovations are likely to be based on existing patents that are still in force.

Jeez that is not something special to medial research and hence obviously not what I meant. You totally missed the point. Medical research is nasty because the human body is nasty and it is very intricately to experiment with human beings for ethical reasons.

What you fear is that one company would develop something, and another copy it.

Yep.

I'll say: that would be a good thing! Not to copy a good thing, a good process or a good product, is wasteful. Suppose a company now invented "the wheel"; reinventing the wheel in a thousand different ways just to evade a patent on the wheel is wasteful. Let companies pour less resources into making copies, instead of pouring them into making slightly different and probably inferior stuff. That means more resources left for investment on really original stuff. Let prices be lowered faster by scale and efficiency gains by eliminating managed artificial scarcity.

And you will answer, predictably, that under these conditions the original company would not have invented the wheel in the first place, because the investment would not have been recouped.

Yep. Though you are absolutely right that patents also mean a decrease of efficiency in the aftermath. The assumption is, that this inefficiency is worth the motivation to produce patent-worthy stuff in the first place.

But why was the investment high in the first place? Was the company doing fundamental research from scratch? How many actually do that? No, states do that. The high cost of research is, ironically, more and more tied, these days, to... patents! Patents held by others, and the need to acquire them or get around them. Fear of litigation. And its costs when it happens. Development can be incremental, and pay off easily, even with competitors copying what you do. Because... you will also be copying their developments.

That doesn't cover it. R&D still are expensive nowadays, even without the need to deal with already established patterns. Really, a very biased approach you portray here. Never mind what that would do to all kinds of media (and I am most concerned about books).

There are two kinds of innovation: the radical one, new fields being opened, and the incremental one.
Those doing incremental development would not be harmed in the least bit by eradicating patents.
The rate of development would probably increase as barriers to experimenting (costs of accessory "IP" and fear of litigation) were removed and incremental developments became the distinguishing factor among competing companies (they cannot be replicated by competitors overnight). The time window would be small, but it would be worth fighting for.

What you forget to appreciate is, that those copying instead if innovating would make the best deal financially. You think that won't stifle development? Come on...

And those doing radical innovation would always have a considerable head start over any competition, because of what we call "business secrets". That doesn't mean they won't go down due to poor decisions, but it means that they have a confortable window of time to recouup investments.

Now you are just fantasying to fit your narrative. As said, the financial most efficient ones will be those who only copy. How can you just ignore such kind of detrimental effect? Those "business secrets" would mostly be easy pray in a world without intellectual property. Companies are not some sort of secret service after all. Things leak, can be copied, and than can be produced at a smaller price because nothing was spend for R&D.

Most real innovators either become millionaires or fail because of lack of business skills. Not because of lack of "IP protection".

Er.. yea.. because there is no such lack so far.

In fact in every new area ever opened there was no "IP protection" to start with: software was more freely copied in the past and not patentable, genes were not patentable, chemistry in the late 19th/early 20th century quickly developed without patents, etc. Patents came in, in each of those cases, as established companies lobbied to lock out competitors from their market after having grown rich enough to buy the political influence necessary.

What SS-18 ICBM said. Innonimatu, in your quest to find scapegoats, I feel you pervert your intellect and get lost in spotting bogeymen.