The Libertarianism Poll

[The Last Conformist]

Copyrights and patents aren't the same thing, tho.

 

[Mise]

The problem is that when he has a patent monopoly and any other people who has the same idea (not stolen from the original inventor) is prohibbited to express it (as I posted before the South Africa AIDS drug problem)

The other people who come up with an AIDS drug must prove that this drug was independantly developed, and is different from the one already patented. The original owner of the AIDS drug is well within his rights to not let other people use it. It's his drug, he can do with it what he wants. Surely that's a libertarian philosophy

 

[The Last Conformist]

I think Stratofortress point is that someone else can independently invent the same drug, but would be unfairly stopped from using it by the first guy's patent.

 

[Mise]

Well, the patent law you are refering to was intended to stop people copying the drug and claiming it was their independent work. If the identical drug was developed independently, how can someone prove that it was their own work? If one of Shakespeare's contemporaries came up with Hamlet a few weeks after Shakespeare wrote it, who would you call the writer?

 

[The Last Conformist]

Again, copyright and patents aren't the same thing.

 

[Mise]

OK, If one of the guy who invented the microwaves' contemporaries came up with the microwave after the guy who invented the microwave invented the microwave, who would you call the inventor?

 

[The Last Conformist]

If they both invented it independently, I call them both inventors.

 

[Mise]

And how can you prove that the other guy invented it independantly?

 

[The Last Conformist]

Depending on the circumstances, it may not be possible to prove beyond reasonable doubt. So what?

 

[Mise]

So I can copy someone elses work and make a profit from it without giving credit to the original inventor.

 

[The Last Conformist]

You might end up in jail, but yes, you can do it.

Do you have a point buried in somewhere here?

 

[Mise]

Why would the inventor bother making his invention known to the public if he knows it is going to be copied by bastards like me?

 

[The Last Conformist]

Because he couldn't make any money of it otherwise? Because he's faith in the authorities to throw you in prison?

Again, what's your point? What are you trying to prove?

 

[Mise]

I'm trying to prove that patents, rather than slowing invention, innovation, and scientific research, actually speed it up.

 

[The Last Conformist]

Indeed. I believe that the benefits of (time-limited) patents are bigger than the disadvantages, but I'm not ideological about it - if someone were to convince me it's the other way round, I'd be happy to change position.

 

[Mise]

Because he couldn't make any money of it otherwise? Because he's faith in the authorities to throw you in prison?

Are we assuming that patent laws are in place now?

 

[The Last Conformist]

Are we assuming that patent laws are in place now?

They are in place now.

 

[Mise]

Well, whatever you were trying to prove, I was trying to prove that patent laws are good by assuming they don't exist and showing that the natural result of invention is patent.

And if you think that the benefits of patents outweigh the disadvantages, why pick me up on the "patents aren't copyrights" thing? And the independent development thing?

 

[The Last Conformist]

I'm not trying to prove anything in particularly - for the last page, I've pretty much been answering you.

I brought up "patents aren't copyrights" because Stratofortress quoted a piece on the Bono Act (which deals with copyrights), while suggesting it was relevant to patents. Then you used your Shakespeare analogy, which doesn't work, again because patents and copyrights are different things.

As for the independent development thing, the first thing I said on the subject was:

I think Stratofortress point is that someone else can independently invent the same drug, but would be unfairly stopped from using it by the first guy's patent.

I was trying to help you understand the other side's arguments; I was not stating an opinion of my own.

(My own opinion is that patents do screw independent secondary inventors, but this unfairness is compensated by the benefits that patents bring.)

 

[The Last Conformist]

I was trying to prove that patent laws are good by assuming they don't exist and showing that the natural result of invention is patent.

I take issue with this, BTW. I cannot see anything natural whatsoever with patents. If there's any "natural" solution, it's letting the copycats copy to whatever extent they can get away with without the original inventor's thugs ripping out their eyes.

("Natural" solutions are usually bad. That's why we have laws and technology.)