Intellectual Property = Monopoly = Inefficiency

[EdwardTking]

But not only slave owners and traders. It's still a reasonable question. What rights is a patent infringing that makes it so diabolical?

The answers to this question have been amply provided in this thread.

Slavery goes against the desire that every human legally living in this country be a citizen, with the rights and responsibilities that go with it.
Do people have a right to good health? How come we happily allow people to wander around with asthma, obesity, hypertension, arthritis etc.? We're infringing their rights simply because they exist?
Is their right to good health more important than our laws guaranteeing property?
Is it more important than our laws forbidding discrimination?
Or is it only discrimination when it's against someone with whom you can easily sympathise? When it's the bourgois middle classes who can just about afford drugs, screw them. Let them pay for the cost of developing drugs to treat everyone else.
Would you rather we treated people unequally, and happily ignored property rights if someone benefitted from this, or we stuck to our principles and said that although regrettable, we've decided that we need more innovation, or these drugs wouldn't be around at all, so we won't order people to produce their products at below retail value.

It's like Mugabe ordering shopkeepers to sell at a certain value! Look what happened there. Only perhaps it's more as though he'd just ordered them to sell at that value to his party members. It still wouldn't be pretty, and people would still consider it stupid and unfair.

A barrage of mainly irrelevant questions demonstrates a lack of rigour.

Is their right to good health more important than our laws guaranteeing property?

They are not my laws. They are the laws the capitalists have bribed legislators to pass. And when it is a question of many people dieing and suffering OR the drugs company's CEO's bonus, then never mind the bonus.

 

[ori]

Small objection: Patents do take away something from universities, namely the ability to discover and distribute certain things. This is I why opined earlier that independent invention should invalidate patents the way prior art does.
Also, while the free market "has" (inasmuch as it's animate ) a bigger incentive to develop things cost-efficiently, it also has an incentive to sell those things cost-efficiently, ie. for whatever price it can, and patents as they stand are essentially a state-enforced monopoly, which distorts the market.

I think that's another fair point. I can't think of any objections to an "independent invention" clause, other than that it's pretty hard to prove that yours was truly independent... (which of course leads us to the question of upon whom the burden of proof falls).

I can think of an objection and that comes directly to the burden of proof:
One of the prerequisites of obtaining a patent is that you publish what your invention entails thus making it possible to copy your invention in the first place, if you go the independent invention route you also have to take away the publication route since otherwise there is no way I as an inventor can be sure someone else doesn't claim "independent" invention after reading my patent.
If that happened we'd defeat one point of patents namely to give an inventor an incentive to publish his invention and not just use it for his own goods.

The university thing Ram is alleging (most inventions are done in universities and public research institutions) is wrong at least in the realm of drug inventions. The main costs of inventing a new drug as has already been posted lies in the extensive clinical testing that needs to be done and no where on earth does public funding even cover a fraction of this, thus most of the clinical development is made by private companies, those would never risk tgens or hundreds of millions of $ without the expectation of earning a lot more than what they risk, take away patent rights on these and you simply lose the main funding of drug research - while public funding of such research would be much better it is not going to happen.

In some other areas especially in basic sciences universities and the likes are much more active since they do not have to look at profitability in the short term so there this does hold true but to claim that companies only provide a path to the market lacks any proof

There are certain areas where patents are indeed used to block competition and there it might be necessary to force licensing - but in most cases patents work as they should:
they protect the right of the inventor to profit from his invention
they protect the interest of the public to know how to replicate this invention once the patent expires
they provide an incentive to invest in new research

One approach inventors can use to safeguard their invention is not to disclose the process they invented to anyone and in the worst case take it to their grave - I very much like a system where people are encouraged to share their discoveries before it gets lost
[/rant]

 

[Erik Mesoy]

In that case you go out, look at the patent, and see if your technology is sufficiently different enough that it won't fall within the ambit of the patent. Patents are very specific and can often be worked around. If it's a big enough stumbling block, attack the patent.

I can think of an objection and that comes directly to the burden of proof:
One of the prerequisites of obtaining a patent is that you publish what your invention entails thus making it possible to copy your invention in the first place

Nope. The USPTO's standards have fallen to the point where you need several years experience both as a lawyer and as a worker in whatever field the patent covers to understand what a patent covers in some areas these days.
Since the penalty in the US for infringing on a patent that you've read is thrice the penalty for infringing on one you haven't read, bosses regularly order R&D departments not to read patents. Additionally, the sheer high number of patents and the time and energy involved in fighting one make it very difficult for a company to attack a patent and hope to have anything resolved in time; the preferred strategy is to send the lawyers to pick up what R&D is doing; patent as much of it as is plausible (rather than reasonable), and cross-license with other companies that have patents. And this chokes small firms out.
[doomprophet] Rotten, I say, the system is rotten to the core! [/doomprophet]

^^^ Correct me if I'm wrong but I think he means clickwrap licenses. Clicking "I agree" before installing stuff and so on.

EULAs ?

But it doesnt matter a jot what the EULA says. Common law holds reasonable usage. The contract may require you to paint your arse blue and wistle the Marseillaise, but it really doesnt signify.

What GaT said. EULAs are worth the paper they're printed on around here, happily.

It's not a decided issue in the US whether shrinkwrap licenses are valid, but in some States they have been conclusively determined to be binding.

Those states suck. Norwegian law treats EULAs as additional conditions attempted enforced after a purchase. Thus, they are invalid.

 

[Brighteye]

You say life and health are less important than freedom and citizenship.

Myself I wouldnt want to have to make the choice, and if I did I would want to be alive as a slave rather than dead as a free man.

But that's not the option. If it was all to do with whether you got rights, and whether you got to be alive, that's a perfectly reasonable choice to make. But it's about whether you can sacrifice someone else's rights for a life.
Would you rather be a slave if it saved someone else's life? Would you be happy if someone enslaved you and told you that it was a good thing because his first command to you was to save a life?
It's not his decision to make.

 

[Brighteye]

The answers to this question have been amply provided in this thread.

Yes, great argument there. I can saw the logic clawing away at what I've said...
Perhaps you could quote some of these answers, since they seem to have passed me by, rather than idly referring to things that don't exist?

A barrage of mainly irrelevant questions demonstrates a lack of rigour.

If you think that they're irrelevant, I suggest that you think harder.

They are not my laws. They are the laws the capitalists have bribed legislators to pass. And when it is a question of many people dieing and suffering OR the drugs company's CEO's bonus, then never mind the bonus.

They are your laws because you live in Norfolk, which is governed by them. What laws would you rather have? What laws are your laws? Why are yours better? On what principles are your laws based, and what justification is there for them?

I'm asking very reasonable questions in an attempt to uncover some sort of argument for your position. If making an argument is irrelevant to your opinion, I can't say I value your opinion.

 

[El_Machinae]

An Innovation Fund.

Like the charity in my sig!

 

[EdwardTking]

They are your laws because you live in Norfolk, which is governed by them.

I may be subject to laws, but that does not make them my laws.

What laws would you rather have?

This is the only question you ask that is even sensible.
So I shall of course answer it as best as I can.

I am not a lawyers so I can only answer as follows with respect to my views as is what is desirable regarding intellectual property right; giving you a round 10 general principles:


(i) laws should NOT be introduced by legislators or treaty negotiators
at the behest of lobbying parties where the primary purpose is to transfer wealth to those lobbying parties;

for instance; extending the life of patents or copyrights at the behest of owning speculators provides a bonus for those speculators who have bought copyrights or patents at the end of their life; at the expense of users or readers; without necessarily encouraging innovation;


(ii) laws should not prevent people from making, copying or doing things;


(iii) any fee due arising from (ii) and intellectual property rights should be modest and proportional to the work undertaken to create such intellectual property, the value of such property and/or the ability of the users to pay;


(iv) the value of such a fee (iii) above, which I acknowledge depends upon three seemingly contradictory criteria, should be determined by a neutral arbitration rather than imposed at the whim of the intellectual property right owner;


(v) the misuse of copyrights to practice fraud e.g. sell inferior products using the quality mark of a superior product should be illegal, and in the event of
injury or death e.g. from forged medicines, vehicle parts severely punishable;


(vi) intellectual property rights should not apply in certain areas, such as
the provision of medicines, safety goods or environmental solutions to problems such as global warming;


(vii) intellectual property rights should apply in optional creative activities
e.g. books, computer games, films, plays;


(viii) a system of public prizes and public sponsorship for research and innovators would be required to substitute for investors gambling for high monopolistic royalties;


(ix) testing innovations (whether medicines or vehicles) for safety should be undertaken by third parties and at the public expense.


(x) intellectual property rights should expire; otherwise they become like medieval feudal dues; an unjustified benefit to those who inherit and a burden on those who don't.

A proper system would end all this time consuming nonsense in shrink wrapped goods and EULAs.

What laws are your laws?

Not being a legislature or a dictator, I own no laws!

Why are yours better?

Not owning laws, there can be no comparison of their merit.

On what principles are your laws based, and what justification is there for them?

Not owning laws, I have no laws to justify them.


The fact is that in most countries the IPR legal regime,
has been established at the behest of and to the benefit
of those lobbying parties who would make money of it.

The argument they make that IPR increases innovation has never
been proven, and the argument that IPR is the only possible funding
method is falsified by public funding and many free thinkers.

The concept of the communications satellite was invented by
Arthur C Clarke as a purely intellectual exercise and not for money.

 

[illram]

Nope. The USPTO's standards have fallen to the point where you need several years experience both as a lawyer and as a worker in whatever field the patent covers to understand what a patent covers in some areas these days.

It is complex because it is highly precise and specifically tailored to the process it patents, and it is written by technical experts in that field. It's very possible for technical professionals to look at patented processes relevant to their fields and decipher exactly what is patented. People from their own fields are the ones writing the patents- the legal side comes in later. So for a company to say "well I heard that might be patented" is really just being lazy, and if that's the attitude of partners of a technical firm then that firm isn't going to go anywhere. In high tech fields dealing with patents is a fact of life. If your company or partnership isn't prepared to deal with that, they are in the wrong business.

And I know I sound like a broken record but I have to keep asking this because it will always be relevant: what is the alternative? Certainly you are not seeking the abolishment of patents? Do you want to get rid of the concept of patenting and licensing innovations entirely? Eliminate the possibility of profiting from invention?

What GaT said. EULAs are worth the paper they're printed on around here, happily.

Well then, debating their legality is pointless since we are both coming from different jurisdictions I guess. But if you're a software company, aren't you a little nervous releasing your program to a public who has little to no restrictions on what they will do with your program? I am guessing there must be some changes looming on the horizon via the EU, because big companies like Microsoft and Apple would probably not release software in a country where they knew they had little to no ability to restrict users of their software from sharing copies and/or reverse engineering their products. There must be some kind of restrictions relevant to software, no? I don't know a lick about Norwegian law, obviously. (As to EULAs, this all mostly copyright we are now discussing BTW.)

Those states suck. Norwegian law treats EULAs as additional conditions attempted enforced after a purchase. Thus, they are invalid.

I am guessing Norwegian law treats stuff you agree to before purchase and download as a binding license agreement, I am hoping? If not, remind me to never sign a contract in Norway.

 

[Brighteye]

As part of a democracy, the laws in place are indeed your laws. I have no problem with your laws really, as long as viii covers vi and iii.
Nonetheless, there needs to be some guiding principle by which you decide what laws are right and just and which you would rather not have.
If I disagree with someone over whether laws are right and just, it is generally best to encourage him to enunciate such guiding principles as there are so that we can compare our ideas at a level closer to the source of disagreement.
To deny that my questions to this purpose are sensible is itself rather silly.

 

[illram]

@Edward the King

In all honesty I agree with most of the principles you wrote down there, (albeit some are worded too generally) but I think you would be heartened to know that much of current copyright law does try to embody some of the things you have written.

There is a lot of new crap laws and lock-down attempts by big lobbying groups such as the Digital Millenium Copyright Act, so I agree that there are things being done that are paranoid and heavy handed by big license holding lobbyists such as the RIAA and the MPAA. In fact, the ability of technology to lock down itself without even needing laws to protect it is now present in the form of DRM technology. Large corporations such as Microsoft and Apple are now probably more of a threat to personal fair use of products than copyright and patent laws are.

OTOH there is a good balance to be struck. I am sure many here would agree that there needs to be some sort of system whereby people can profit from their inventions, trademarks, or copyrighted creations such as novels, games, or paintings. Your post said as much, correct?

 

[EdwardTking]

People who do good useful work that benefits us are entitled to be paid.

 

[GinandTonic]

Brighteye

You object to differential pricing in human medicine. How do you feel about the same drug being sold for 1/400th as a vetenary drug? Same chemical, only difference being the method of delivery, owing to dogs comming in such differing sizes.

Note, this is not a thought experiment but a real world example.

 

[Brighteye]

I think that the drug company is foolish for allowing its drug onto the market so cheaply, but I have less problem with it.
It's not penalising one type of human any more by forcing him to pay for something he needs, but someone else doesn't have to pay for.
It is rather cheeky nonetheless, because dog-owners are, in effect, having their dogs' health paid for by suffering humans: the same argument I made about a similar situation before.

 

[GinandTonic]

I think that the drug company is foolish for allowing its drug onto the market so cheaply, but I have less problem with it.
It's not penalising one type of human any more by forcing him to pay for something he needs, but someone else doesn't have to pay for.
It is rather cheeky nonetheless, because dog-owners are, in effect, having their dogs' health paid for by suffering humans: the same argument I made about a similar situation before.

But there is no market for the vetenary drug at the human prices. They either recieve no money on the vetenary side, or some money. They decide that some money > no money.

A simple example of everything being worth what the purcheser will pay.

Ive seen the person who told me about this give their son vetenary drugs when they know (eg they have a phd and this is what they do with their life) that the pill contains the same chemicals as the human version.

 

[lovett]

Theres an interesting assumption in this thread, that patent owners assume the right to exclude others from utilising their invention with no corresponding trade off.

But ownership is far far from being the only objective of patents. Examine the etymology for a minute; Patent, from the latin Patere. That means 'to lay open', namely for public inspection.

Because the inventor makes a trade for the temporary (legal) right to property ownership. As a prequisite, the inventor must release all detailes of his invention into the public domain, for ever and ever and ever

Thats the real benefit of a patent system. Everybody can examine the patent, everybody can utilise it in full after ten, sometimes twenty years. But just as importantly, even whilst the inventor holds patent rights everbody can examine the patent. If the're bright enough they can develop workarounds. They can create entire alternative technologies springing from the unpatentable (but public) ideas unvieled in the patent.

Someone else mentioned what used to happen without a properly functioning patent system - trade secrets.

That means a single organisation spending huge amount of effort keeping its processes secret. Not only does this deprive the public of infomation (via patent records) and thus reduce innovation, it also directly damages the consumer. Imagine how much more expensive it is to keep something secret, then to utilise it to its full extent. Not to mention what it costs for people to steal eachothers secrets. And im sure you can work out who pays all these extra costs, passed down through the product.

Not to mention patent records have the nice affect of preserving human knowledge indefintely, in marked contrast to trade secrets- I.e masonry.

 

[GinandTonic]

Theres an interesting assumption in this thread, that patent owners assume the right to exclude others from utilising their invention with no corresponding trade off.

But ownership is far far from being the only objective of patents. Examine the etymology for a minute; Patent, from the latin Patere. That means 'to lay open', namely for public inspection.

Because the inventor makes a trade for the temporary (legal) right to property ownership. As a prequisite, the inventor must release all detailes of his invention into the public domain, for ever and ever and ever

Thats the real benefit of a patent system. Everybody can examine the patent, everybody can utilise it in full after ten, sometimes twenty years. But just as importantly, even whilst the inventor holds patent rights everbody can examine the patent. If the're bright enough they can develop workarounds. They can create entire alternative technologies springing from the unpatentable (but public) ideas unvieled in the patent.

Someone else mentioned what used to happen without a properly functioning patent system - trade secrets.

That means a single organisation spending huge amount of effort keeping its processes secret. Not only does this deprive the public of infomation (via patent records) and thus reduce innovation, it also directly damages the consumer. Imagine how much more expensive it is to keep something secret, then to utilise it to its full extent. Not to mention what it costs for people to steal eachothers secrets. And im sure you can work out who pays all these extra costs, passed down through the product.

Not to mention patent records have the nice affect of preserving human knowledge indefintely, in marked contrast to trade secrets- I.e masonry.

A good point well very well made. It did occur to me (though I doubt I could have phrased it so nicely), but I was on a kind on partisan angle at the time so I kept my gob shut...

 

[Sims2789]

In the United States, patents and copyrights aren't inherent rights, like freedom of speech or religion. Instead, artists and inventors are only given temporary, limited monopolies on their work for the sole purpose of promoting the arts and sciences. Patents accomplish this by creating an incentive for inventors to disclose their inventions, and copyright does this by giving the copyright holder exclusive rights to a work for part of its useful and valuable life, after which copyright expires and everybody has access to it and can even build upon it to create new works.

In the past 30 or so years, however, copyright especially has changed to an inherent right held by the artist, and is no longer an artificial mechanism created to encourage the creation of works for the public benefit.

I think it can be argued that copyright laws that don't promote advancement in the arts and sciences are unconstitutional (i.e., the Sony Bono Copyright Extension Act), but I'm not a lawyer and as far as I know nobody's tried arguing that yet. Uninventive and obvious patents clearly don't promote the arts and sciences and can get overturned in court, but this is very expensive so often companies pay licensing fees for murky patents. Plus, at least in software, the patent office approves most applications, even ones of questionable innovation.

Trademarks, on the other hand, exist to protect consumers from fraud. So, you can write a book criticizing Coca-Cola and use the word Coca-Cola all you want, but you can't sell soda that's named Coca-Cola.