Intellectual Property...thoughts? [Archive]

x88x

05-21-2011, 07:27 AM

I was just thinking about this because of something that the giant robot guy (http://www.thebestcasescenario.com/forum/showthread.php?p=329310) said, and I thought I'd throw this out there.

What is your opinion on the concept of Intellectual Property (IP)?

The way I see it (and apparently the US government agrees with me on this), there are two general categories of IP; IP that results in goods or services in the physical world (ex, manufacturing techniques, product designs, chemical formulas, etc) and IP that results in goods or services only in the digital/information world (ex, books, music, etc). The reason I say the US government agrees with me (at least roughly) is that we have two different ways of protecting these two types of IP; namely, patents and copyrights, respectively. Software is a hazy area that sometimes falls under one group and sometimes under another.

For the purposes of this discussion, I am only talking about the first type of IP. I'm not asking what your position on the legality of IP is or the state of the current patent system, what I'm asking is what your opinion on this type of information in general is.

Personally, I don't believe in IP. I know, I know, let me explain. My stance on it is summed up very well in my sig, which I will quote here just in case I ever change it:

That we enjoy great advantages from the inventions of others, we should be glad of an opportunity to serve others by any invention of ours, and this we should do freely and generously.
--Benjamin Franklin
Basically, I believe that any and all innovation should be shared freely and openly. Further, I believe that with very few exceptions, all information and knowledge should be freely and openly available (those few exceptions being cases where releasing that information directly puts peoples lives at risk, such as publishing troop movements to a publicly accessible site). This is why I am such a big believer in the Wikimedia project, and why they are one of the few organizations I actually financially support.

I believe in the rights of the innovator to decide what to do with their innovation, and I respect their rights to proprietarize and defend their innovations, but I do not believe that this is in the best interest of the race as a whole.

As such, any innovations that I make, inventions that I create, software that I develop, or books that I write (and so on) will be protected, but will be protected under such licenses as the GNU GPL and the Creative Commons license.

I believe that in addition to being a better long-range option, this is also still an economically viable option as well. There do exist quite successful businesses that base themselves around open-source products. Red Hat is a prime example of this. On a smaller scale but a more physical realm, Arduino is another great example. I believe that openness of information in innovative fields would increase collaboration between competitors and instead of hindering innovation, actually bolster it. In product manufacturing, I believe that it would drive companies raise their build quality and customer support to higher standards. Instead of attracting customers by being the only game in town, they would have to attract consumers by providing a higher quality product and better service.

Thoughts? Discussion?

dr.walrus

05-21-2011, 08:11 AM

IP is, right or wrong, impossible to avoid in our economic system. Without it, many software houses would be out of a job; without intellectual property, you can't sell software. One person buys it, and without IP protection, they can simply copy it and hand it out...

RogueOpportunist

05-21-2011, 11:26 AM

I've always been conflicted on this issue, on one hand I would love to embrace the "everything for free and love is all we need" type philosophies but on the other hand, I'm a realist, R&D costs money and wouldn't happen unless there was profit to be made, profit which without patents becomes nearly impossible to make.

I think the larger problem clouding these types of discussions is corporate greed and irresponsibility, when you have pharmaceutical companies patenting genomes and turning our own biological material into tangible "product" preventing anyone else from using "their" material in any other studies, research or products unless they get paid; that I object to (and apparently so does my government since those types of international patents are not upheld in Canada)... If some people had their way air would be patented as intellectual property because your brain needs it to create the ideas that then become intellectual property... That six degrees of separation kind of law making I whole-heartedly object to.

On the flip side you have the technology industry, let's say for a moment that patents did not exist and that the leapfrog competition between AMD and Intel never happened because each individual company's respective trade information was available to the other so instead of trying to "best" each other they simply didn't do anything. R&D costs billions of dollars, billions of dollars that would be spent developing technologies your competition would be free to use without having to pay you a cent... Without patents technological advancement would grind to a halt because there would be next to no motivation for any one company to front the cash it takes to move the ball forward.

As far as copyright is concerned, it kind depends on what you consider copyright, I'm more a fan of the creative commons/GPL stuff, software licensing is a grey area for me though, on the one hand I think that like hardware technology software companies have the right to profit off their own research but at the same time this concept of "I don't pay to buy the software, I pay for the right to use the software" type legality is nonsense, especially when these "license agreements" are so heavily distorted by their legal departments that you're almost giving power of attorney every time you click accept... In the "hardware" world there are consumer protection agencies that prevent companies from selling snake oil... In the software world, some days it seems that all they sell is snake oil.

The music/media industry need to burn in hell, don't get me wrong I'm all for supporting artists but when the artist gets 5 cents off a 20$ CD it's no longer an issue of support, it's just pure corporate greed... The way I see it don't buy the CD, if you like the artist put that 20$ towards a concert ticket... That's how the artist gets paid anyways.

I guess the whole debate is just a mirror for life, it's not the basic ideas behind having the "rules" that make the "rules" wrong, it's when the underbelly of our society figure out how to distort those "rules" for their own personal gain that things go wrong... It's not wrong for someone to want to protect their ideas for a period of time so they can get them to market and make some money... But that's about where my justification ends... When the "rules" are written so that when I do something it ruins my life while corporation's profit off the exact same activity I have no choice but to declare those "rules" as invalid, oppressive and obviously written by a criminal enterprise.

I guess the only real question left for the individual to answer is what sets precedent in your life? The paper laws someone else tells you to abide, or the moral laws you tell yourself to abide? Because the two are not one and the same and often come into conflict... I side with morality, be it for business or personal activities I do what I feel is right and support what I feel is right, if what is being done extorts, abuses or in any way harms other people that just isn't right and in the patent/copyright world you see lawyers using these things to hurt people all the time... I guess from my side you could say I am not against the patent, I am against the legal department.

In regards to the Redhat thing, Redhat makes their money and funds their "company" through closed sourced software, the only part of their company that is open sourced is the basic OS... which let's be honest, is only open sourced because Redhat plays a very small part in its development and the Redhat OS is just a conglomeration of softwares developed by other people... Anyone with a little knowledge can make a distro, it's really not hard at all... Redhat is a prime example of a company that uses "open source" as a marketing tactic and have been marketing themselves as an open source supporter while making almost all of their contributions to the OS closed source, historically speaking Redhat has a pretty tarnished reputation in the Linux community, they've even been caught altering GPL'd software and re-releasing it in a closed-source form... Redhat abandoned their support of an open source OS platform in 2003, now they just release an unsupported basic distro for "free" in attempt to maintain some link to the open source linux community (mainly because they have to due to licensing) while charging for their real enterprise product... If you want a better example of open source Ubuntu would be it.

I just wanted to address the Redhat thing because this IMO is a prime example of a company that exploits people for its own personal gain.

x88x

05-22-2011, 01:45 AM

Like I said, software is a hazy area that I think belongs more in the copyright realm than patent...unfortunately (last I checked anyways) laws and legislation in the US still have yet to decide what software really is and how it should be handled as IP. I think that a lot of software companies could embrace open-sourcing their stuff and still make a hefty profit, but I agree it would not work everywhere.

The reason I mentioned Redhat is because they are one of the most prominent and successful companies who have embraced open-sourcing their stuff. I don't want to turn this into a war over Redhat, Rogue, but I think you need to check your facts on them. They make their money primarily through support, training, and integration services, and most if not all of the software that they create is open-source. They also have a long history of purchasing closed-source software from other software companies and open-sourcing them. They did not 'abandon' the open-source OS 2003; they split their efforts into two different OSs, one targeted towards the community and focusing on rapid development and innovation (Fedora) and one focusing on long-term reliability, stability, and integration (RHEL). And, incidentally, they do have the source code for everything included in RHEL freely available on their ftp server (http://ftp.redhat.com/redhat/linux/enterprise/). This is how CentOS came to be; they took the RHEL code, stripped out the Redhat icons/etc, and rebuilt it into their own branch. And as for their 'link' to the open source Linux community, in addition to all their other open-source projects, as of August 2009, they were the single largest corporate contributor to the Linux kernel, providing 12.3% of all changes (PDF (http://www.linuxfoundation.org/sites/main/files/publications/whowriteslinux.pdf)). Oh, and the reason I didn't mention Canonical is because last I checked they have yet to post a profit, whereas Redhat posted a net profit of $87.25 million in 2010. Don't get me wrong, I love Canonical, I think they do a lot of great work, and I wish them the best of success, but last I heard they were just hoping to break even in 2010...which does not exactly make them a great example of a profitable software company based on open-source software....since, you know, for something to be profitable, it must have profits.

I also disagree with the premise that innovation would halt without patents. That assumes that monetary gain is the only motivation for companies like this to develop technologies. Sure, it's a very large motivator, but I don't think they would exist in the first place, much less create innovative products, if that was their only motivator. Besides, the technologies that cost the most to develop usually also cost the most to manufacture anyway, so I'm not convinced that it would even majorly affect profits....anyways, that's for business people to figure out, not me. :P

EDIT:
Oh, and I forgot to mention. Since you mentioned "what you consider copyright", Rogue. The GNU GPL, Copyleft, Creative Commons, etc are, iirc, all actually just specially worded copyright licenses that grant certain freedoms and set certain restrictions that are not present in standard copyright licenses.

RogueOpportunist

05-22-2011, 05:53 PM

Yeah my bad on the Redhat thing, I was thinking in the past but writing in the present without updating my facts first, Redhat has indeed turned 180 from the closed source direction they had themselves headed in a few years ago... However, to date you still have to go CentOS if you want anything RHEL has to offer because despite being "open source" there is no free version of RHEL, this is where in my haste in writing an arbitrary forum post I started imposing my own terminology on what would be called "open source" since Redhat have forced the community to repackage everything from the source instead of just offering it freely and if it was just the support and service you are paying for they would charge for the support and service, not the OS... But the moral compass debate over Redhat could go on forever... Let's just say they're less evil than Microsoft and leave it at that. :lick:

x88x

05-22-2011, 06:59 PM

Let's just say they're less evil than Microsoft and leave it at that. :lick:
Heheh, fair enough. ;) I will say, I rather despise working with RHEL though....for precisely the reasons it's good for corporate environments..before they release any official packages for it, they make damn sure they will work reliably until the heat death of the universe...but because of that it takes an obscene amount of time for any packages to get through that process. :facepalm:

AmEv

05-22-2011, 07:01 PM

Redhat?
What's that? :rolleyes:

knowledgegranted

05-22-2011, 08:23 PM

There is something that you are all missing, and when I decided to file for my patents, it's something I unfortunately realized. If things aren't done using the patent system, no one will publish their work for anyone to see. They will hide it, creating "trade secrets" because they can't make any money off of it for the reason that they can't collect royalties.

I also disagree with the premise that innovation would halt without patents. That assumes that monetary gain is the only motivation for companies like this to develop technologies. Sure, it's a very large motivator, but I don't think they would exist in the first place, much less create innovative products, if that was their only motivator. Besides, the technologies that cost the most to develop usually also cost the most to manufacture anyway, so I'm not convinced that it would even majorly affect profits....anyways, that's for business people to figure out, not me.

Innovation would most definitely halt because now nothing would be published publicly.

Believe me guys, I wish we could all publish work and use it freely, but that system just would not be usable.

x88x

05-22-2011, 10:47 PM

Believe me guys, I wish we could all publish work and use it freely, but that system just would not be usable.

Then be the change you wish you could see and make it work. Plenty of companies already publish the results of their research to the public domain, whether through open-source software, scholarly journals, or whatever. It is possible to be profitable and still do this. What route is taken is, of course, up to the person taking it, but just because a large part of the world works one way today does not mean that it is the only way that can work. Just because it is the prevailing trend to operate in a certain way does not mean that we cannot try to promote a different way. A, in my opinion, better way. Break the mold; have the courage to live your ideals; and maybe, just maybe, we can make a difference.

Really, I think the problem is not so much with patents in and of themselves (though I still don't believe in them personally), but with the long term that patents apply (20 years, currently) and the way that they are used today. Originally they were intended to foster innovation by providing an incentive to the innovator of exclusive rights to their creation for a set period of time. Since then, it has been perverted from its original purpose and, imo, now hinders innovation far more than it fosters it. Especially in the technology fields, I believe collaboration is vital in order to advance as well as possible. How many times have vast sums of money been spent re-developing a technology that had already been developed by a competitor? How much time, money, and talent has been lost because of pointless lawsuits because the results of one company's R&D was just a little too similar to another company's product?

One area that has really driven this home to me recently is the area of battery technology. One of the most promising American battery companies (A123 Systems) was unable to pursue making their product and building their business for several years because of a patent lawsuit filed by the University of Oklahoma, who wasn't even doing anything with it. Conversely, some of the biggest breakthroughs in stability, and by far the largest production and market penetration, of modern battery chemistries has come out of China...where for the most part, patents are just ignored if they exist at all.

In my opinion, the current patent system has reached a point where is causes more harm than good; one of the reasons I choose not to use it.

Incidentally, speaking of giant robot guy (well, something he said was the impetus for me starting this thread anyways), convenient timing, but I just stumbled across this video he did, which expresses a good point of view on the results of the current patent system and corporate culture. Even though I think he and I have a bit (though not completely) different ideas on what the best solution to the problem is, I agree with a lot of the points he makes.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LDpLwgFuMeU&feature=relmfu

knowledgegranted

05-23-2011, 10:28 AM

Then be the change you wish you could see and make it work. Plenty of companies already publish the results of their research to the public domain, whether through open-source software, scholarly journals, or whatever. It is possible to be profitable and still do this. What route is taken is, of course, up to the person taking it, but just because a large part of the world works one way today does not mean that it is the only way that can work. Just because it is the prevailing trend to operate in a certain way does not mean that we cannot try to promote a different way. A, in my opinion, better way. Break the mold; have the courage to live your ideals; and maybe, just maybe, we can make a difference.

Really, I think the problem is not so much with patents in and of themselves (though I still don't believe in them personally), but with the long term that patents apply (20 years, currently) and the way that they are used today. Originally they were intended to foster innovation by providing an incentive to the innovator of exclusive rights to their creation for a set period of time. Since then, it has been perverted from its original purpose and, imo, now hinders innovation far more than it fosters it. Especially in the technology fields, I believe collaboration is vital in order to advance as well as possible. How many times have vast sums of money been spent re-developing a technology that had already been developed by a competitor? How much time, money, and talent has been lost because of pointless lawsuits because the results of one company's R&D was just a little too similar to another company's product?

One area that has really driven this home to me recently is the area of battery technology. One of the most promising American battery companies (A123 Systems) was unable to pursue making their product and building their business for several years because of a patent lawsuit filed by the University of Oklahoma, who wasn't even doing anything with it. Conversely, some of the biggest breakthroughs in stability, and by far the largest production and market penetration, of modern battery chemistries has come out of China...where for the most part, patents are just ignored if they exist at all.

In my opinion, the current patent system has reached a point where is causes more harm than good; one of the reasons I choose not to use it.

Incidentally, speaking of giant robot guy (well, something he said was the impetus for me starting this thread anyways), convenient timing, but I just stumbled across this video he did, which expresses a good point of view on the results of the current patent system and corporate culture. Even though I think he and I have a bit (though not completely) different ideas on what the best solution to the problem is, I agree with a lot of the points he makes.

Where greed exists, none of this will ever happen. Power in the money, the money in the power (Coolio), is the most single true line that applies to everything in this world. On alot of points, I agree with you, and I would like the system to become like that, however when greed exists, this will not.

Airbozo

05-23-2011, 11:40 AM

dr.walrus

05-23-2011, 12:01 PM

I personally think that without some sort of patent system, there would be very little motivation to invest money in scientific discovery. "For the good of man" is not a motivator since another person could just come along, steal your idea and make money off of it with no recourse on your part.

While I do not agree with being able to patent things that occur in nature, such as DNA and algorithms (plus many more), I do feel that being able to patent discoveries where those items are used to create "something else", drives innovation and results in products that are "For the good of man".

Face it. Money drives the world. Without it and the goal of achieving it mankind would not be where we are today. Does greed exist? Sure. We are talking about mankind here.

This, basically. Without IP for product innovation (read, patents), companies wouldn't invest in R&D - what's the point? It would water down consumer products.

Universities sometimes choose to patent, sometimes not. Penicillin is an interesting example. The University of Oxford developed a method to produce and extract it, but because it's wartime they choose not to patent and give the rights to US, the USDA made huge strides and the rights were handed out to pharmaceutical companies for the war effort - who shared their expertise, leading to there being enough penicillin by the end of war for every allied war casualty.

Now, that sounds like an argument against patenting (and I certainly agree that it's a good one), but what of the innovators? Ernst Chain had argued that they should have patented the drug - though it was considered unethical to patent drugs in the UK at the time - but because they didn't, Britain had to buy Penicillin from the USA at increased cost; the innovator actually incurred costs, not a profit! That just doesn't fly in business - and that's why firms are so strict on IP.

There are times where it's appropriate, and times where it's not. I would certainly argue that the internet, world wide web, wikipedia, linux, all present fantastic arguments towards the power of 'new' ideas of intellectual property. But having a firm make wild innovations and then be forced out of the market by a bigger company, with their own billions of dollars of research used against them? That's what bothers me.

x88x

05-23-2011, 03:17 PM

Britain had to buy Penicillin from the USA at increased cost; the innovator actually incurred costs, not a profit!
But the question you have to ask is, if they hadn't shared the information they had, how much time and money would they have spent getting to the point in efficiency, effectiveness, and mass-producability that was reached through the international cooperation? Did they actually end up incurring a net cost or not? Unfortunately, in my experience, the people in charge of decisions like those, especially with large corporations, tend to not look at the long picture. ...in fact, in my experience, that's a problem a lot of people in general have....one of the reasons the world economy is in the shape it is right now..

Something that I think a lot of people have misinterpreted...I'm not calling for the abolishment of the patent system. Neither am I trying to convince the whole world that I am right or that everyone should do what I think is right. I am perfectly well aware that the majority of the business world would say that what I'm saying is ridiculous/naive/etc. But that doesn't change my beliefs or mean that I'll stop doing my best to live according to my ideals. ;)

RogueOpportunist

05-23-2011, 03:30 PM

But having a firm make wild innovations and then be forced out of the market by a bigger company, with their own billions of dollars of research used against them? That's what bothers me.

I don't even think it would take a bigger company to gut the smaller ones, I mean that is for all intents and purposes what already happens in the modern day business world, the change in losing the protection from patents would if anything destroy the big company when all the little companies can go from design to production without having to incur any R&D costs and while some might think of the demise of international billion dollar corporate enterprise as a good thing (I'm one of them BTW) the long term effects that would have on our technological advancement would be devastating because like I said earlier there would be no motivation to spend the money required to do the research when you know that research isn't going to be able to make any money back.

The "companies" that can be used as good examples of "open everything, information is free" success stories are all flawed in my personal opinion, I mean anyone can open a soup kitchen and feed a couple homeless people, that doesn't mean your model and success could be used as some blueprint for how to eliminate hunger worldwide though does it? In the big picture there just isn't enough food and if we tried to feed everyone equally the reality of it is we would all starve... Same thing applies to the "open everything" movement, if we tried to "feed everybody" all the markets would starve.

Equality does not exist in reality, the closest thing we have is balance... No 2 things in nature are equal but everything sits in perfect balance... And then there's us...

We're forced think everyone is equal in society but we still think we're better than the next guy as individuals... (Especially if you're a Mac user)

We think we're in balance with the universe but we consume everything we touch... (Seriously, when's the last time you saw us leave something alone)

We expect there to be law and order but we don't feel the need to abide by either should they inconvenience us... (Guy cuts you off in traffic and he's an a-hole that doesn't deserve to have a license... you cut him off and he's still an a-hole that doesn't deserve ho have his license because he was driving in your blind spot)

We are capable of calculating the speed and distance objects in the universe are travelling at but basic maths like "I have 200$ in my bank account, that means I can afford that 700$ LCD T.V." escape us... (1+1 isn't 11)

We are all perfectly healthy but we smoke a pack a day and dine exclusively on the finest fast food... (and cheapest booze)

It's not what is written or not written that is the problem, we as human beings are just flawed by design... Nothing ever works "as planned" because we, as a species, do not work "as planned"... If you want to test the theory out here's a simple way to do it, make a giant poster to put on the front of your house, on that poster write that your front door is unlocked and anyone in the neighborhood is free to borrow anything they like while you are not at home so long as they return it by the time you get home, make sure to include the work schedules of anyone in the house and outline the specific times of day when there is nobody in the house and all of your stuff is just sitting there unused, explain to them that you are trying to save the world by donating what you have to the greater good and that if we all share openly there wouldn't be as much need to spend money (or steal things) so we could all elevate our communal status... Then let us all know how it works out. :lick:

dr.walrus

05-23-2011, 03:38 PM

But the question you have to ask is, if they hadn't shared the information they had, how much time and money would they have spent getting to the point in efficiency, effectiveness, and mass-producability that was reached through the international cooperation? Did they actually end up incurring a net cost or not? Unfortunately, in my experience, the people in charge of decisions like those, especially with large corporations, tend to not look at the long picture. ...in fact, in my experience, that's a problem a lot of people in general have....one of the reasons the world economy is in the shape it is right now..

Well, with penicillin, private industry footed the cost, so the UK as a whole made the loss: penicillin is interesting, because it sat in patent limbo until 1959. There were so many parties involved, (universities, private companies, governments), it's hard to determine who made a profit or a loss. In reality, Oxford could have made the profit of a century by patenting, but Florey chose not to pursue that route. After that, the UK as a whole made a loss, because they had to import the drug, at a cost that accounted for the development cost.

I'm not supporting or disagreeing with your argument; rather, I think IP is looked at too narrowly. The record industry (and their distribution systems always being ten years too late and mired with legal expenses) is a good example of that. I think we will see a rise in open licensing over the next few decades, but with our economic system? We're always going to have and need IP laws.

x88x

05-23-2011, 05:43 PM

In the big picture there just isn't enough food and if we tried to feed everyone equally the reality of it is we would all starve...
That's not actually the problem with solving world hunger, so perhaps not the best analogy, but that's another discussion entirely. :P

I agree with your premise though; the basic problem with any system working is that the majority of the population are fundamentally self-centered a**holes, so any individual or company who tries to advance the common good is inherently at a disadvantage. Kinda along the same lines of, personally I think Communism is a great idea...in theory...but the minute you try and implement it in the real world, on a large scale, people start exploiting it and it just ends in shambles.

EDIT:
Ok, not the majority of the population, but at least a very influential minority.

Airbozo

05-23-2011, 06:56 PM

That's not actually the problem with solving world hunger, so perhaps not the best analogy, but that's another discussion entirely. :P

I agree with your premise though; the basic problem with any system working is that the majority of the population are fundamentally self-centered a**holes, so any individual or company who tries to advance the common good is inherently at a disadvantage. Kinda along the same lines of, personally I think Communism is a great idea...in theory...but the minute you try and implement it in the real world, on a large scale, people start exploiting it and it just ends in shambles.

EDIT:
Ok, not the majority of the population, but at least a very influential minority.

No, I think you got it right the first time.

Humans have as their most basic instinct, the instinct to survive. No matter what it takes. This is why communism and socialism will never work. People SAY they want the best for the human race and the world in general, but dare to take something away from them and the guns come out. No one is going to give anything up that may threaten their existence in this world no matter how minor.

This is why I laugh at people implying that communism or socialism or one certain program or another will work. Sure, in THEORY things like that work until you factor in human behavior then the theory goes to hell.

RogueOpportunist

05-23-2011, 08:21 PM

If we take a historical look back over the past 500 years there has been much "technological" advancement, but not much sociological advancement, sure we tend to "hide" the darker sides of our nature a little better now and when we look back at the "old days" we can convince ourselves that we're somehow less savage and more advanced but all of that so-called savagery was just action derived from thought, all we did was repress the action, we have done little to nothing to alter the thought.

The "human condition" doesn't involve warfar, or slavery, or racism, or any of the other examples one would likely cite as proof to how we have somehow "evolved"... The "human condition" is how I can say 1 sentence, 1 phrase or even a single word that makes someone else think I'm "wrong", thus invalidating anything I ever say again in their eyes... The psychological motivators that justify the repression of one's opinion due to that opinion being regarded inferior is still there, depending on the scope of the example some might even justify murder as a sanctified recourse to my expression of opinion.

The next step in evolution for the species will come when we, as a species, finally realize that it's not about who is right and who is wrong... We're still way too young to even begin making such assessments... It's about finding the common ground that make right and wrong irrelevant... The patent system isn't right, or wrong... It just is... Agree or disagree, it has still heavily influenced our technological advancement and we've accomplished more in the past 50 years than we ever did in the 500 that came before... Whatever one can say about the moral debate of privatizing information, it's still hard to deny that the current system works... Flawed as it may be.

Could another system work better? Possibly, in fact I don't doubt in the slightest that there is another system that would work better, however, thinking in terms of computers, the "system" is the hardware, we the people are the software, if the software isn't ready for new hardware then there is nothing to be gained by changing the hardware... but potentially much to lose.

dr.walrus

05-24-2011, 07:15 AM

Humans have as their most basic instinct, the instinct to survive. No matter what it takes. This is why communism and socialism will never work. People SAY they want the best for the human race and the world in general, but dare to take something away from them and the guns come out. No one is going to give anything up that may threaten their existence in this world no matter how minor.

This is why I laugh at people implying that communism or socialism or one certain program or another will work. Sure, in THEORY things like that work until you factor in human behavior then the theory goes to hell.

Partially, yes. I support some socialist ideas in principle - that's why I believe things like healthcare should be publicly available and free, but further than that requires, esssentially, everyone in the population to agree. Which is why, I believe, we saw so many countries being supressed under the USSR.

xr4man

05-24-2011, 08:37 AM

No, I think you got it right the first time.

Humans have as their most basic instinct, the instinct to survive. No matter what it takes. This is why communism and socialism will never work. People SAY they want the best for the human race and the world in general, but dare to take something away from them and the guns come out. No one is going to give anything up that may threaten their existence in this world no matter how minor.

This is why I laugh at people implying that communism or socialism or one certain program or another will work. Sure, in THEORY things like that work until you factor in human behavior then the theory goes to hell.

it's nice to see that there really are some people left in this country that understand that simple fact about communism and socialism.

@Dr. Walrus - you do realize that there is no such thing as free healthcare don't you? that those of us who work are forced to pay for it for those who don't work. which comes back to why communism and socialism won't work.

dr.walrus

05-24-2011, 09:07 AM

@Dr. Walrus - you do realize that there is no such thing as free healthcare don't you? that those of us who work are forced to pay for it for those who don't work. which comes back to why communism and socialism won't work.

OMG really? It comes from taxes?!?! Using that definition of 'free' means that 'free' doesn't exist. I don't hold with that definition of terms.

I have worked and paid towards my healthcare since my mid teens - I believe that this should be absorbed into our tax burden and health care should never be denied to anyone. The rich are more than welcome to have their own hospitals that they pay for. I don't believe the poor and those who do not work should be sentenced to die from preventable diseases! If that makes me a radical thinker then, jesus, count me in.

So what about 'free' schools? That's, strictly, just as socialist as government healthcare...

dr.walrus

05-24-2011, 09:17 AM

oh and there I go derailing a thead again. Sorry x88x.

xr4man

05-24-2011, 10:20 AM

OMG really? It comes from taxes?!?! Using that definition of 'free' means that 'free' doesn't exist. I don't hold with that definition of terms.

I have worked and paid towards my healthcare since my mid teens - I believe that this should be absorbed into our tax burden and health care should never be denied to anyone. The rich are more than welcome to have their own hospitals that they pay for. I don't believe the poor and those who do not work should be sentenced to die from preventable diseases! If that makes me a radical thinker then, jesus, count me in.

So what about 'free' schools? That's, strictly, just as socialist as government healthcare...

touche.

the difference though, is that with one, you are giving a man a fish and with the other you are teaching the man how to fish.

RogueOpportunist

05-24-2011, 11:03 AM

touche.

the difference though, is that with one, you are giving a man a fish and with the other you are teaching the man how to fish.

So what you're saying is that to solve the health-care issue, instead of paying for the healthcare system that made many of the rich rich to begin with, the rich should pay for the schooling to make all the working class into doctors?

If teaching us about fish is the name of the game, I'll see you all in gynecological studies 101! :banana:

xr4man

05-24-2011, 11:20 AM

no, that's not what i'm saying. what i'm saying is that i have worked hard to get where i am now and a lot of the "rich" have worked to build up their massive fortunes too (excluding those who inherited it). i'm also not saying that the former healthcare system wasn't broke, but my point is, that if you go to school and learn how to do something, then you can get a job where you can afford some form of healthcare. i'm all for affordable healthcare, but not for giving it away to some lazy f*ck that thinks he or she deserves it because the world owes them something, and especially not when i'm paying for mine and theirs.

x88x

05-24-2011, 11:49 AM

i'm all for affordable healthcare, but not for giving it away to some lazy f*ck that thinks he or she deserves it because the world owes them something, and especially not when i'm paying for mine and theirs.

I guarantee you, that same "lazy f*ck" also benefited from the tax-supported schools, what with our mandatory education laws. Point being, the argument is just as valid for both. Education isn't going to make someone want to work if they don't want to already. And if they want to work, they're going to be doing so whether they had that education or not. They'll just be much more likely to earn more if they are educated.

AmEv

05-24-2011, 11:51 AM

So, free as in health care...?

xr4man

05-24-2011, 12:53 PM

I guarantee you, that same "lazy f*ck" also benefited from the tax-supported schools, what with our mandatory education laws. Point being, the argument is just as valid for both. Education isn't going to make someone want to work if they don't want to already. And if they want to work, they're going to be doing so whether they had that education or not. They'll just be much more likely to earn more if they are educated.

that's just it. give them the opportunity to better themselves. if hey still don't want to, then screw em. people are more inclined to help someone out that is willing to do something on their own. it all comes down to the choice you make. if you choose not to be a contributing factor to society, then why should the rest of society be burdened with taking care of you? on the other hand though, if someone had circumstances beyond their control, then i have no problem with my hard earned tax dollars going to help them out.

dr.walrus

05-24-2011, 01:29 PM

So what you're saying is that to solve the health-care issue, instead of paying for the healthcare system that made many of the rich rich to begin with, the rich should pay for the schooling to make all the working class into doctors?

...well, to a certain extent, they already do.

dr.walrus

05-24-2011, 01:30 PM

i'm all for affordable healthcare, but not for giving it away to some lazy f*ck that thinks he or she deserves it because the world owes them something, and especially not when i'm paying for mine and theirs.
Without state provided healthcare, more poor people die. That's a fact.

I don't think a poor work ethic should condemn people to death, nope. And I'll go to the grave thinking that.

dr.walrus

05-24-2011, 01:33 PM

touche.

the difference though, is that with one, you are giving a man a fish and with the other you are teaching the man how to fish.

No, with one you're teaching him how to fish, and with the other, you're bandaging his wounded arm so he can keep fishing...

RogueOpportunist

05-24-2011, 02:00 PM

I dunno, I'm Canadian so I already have socialized healthcare and education... It's not perfect but at least we're ranked in the top 10, if not top 5 for things like overall national health, education and quality of life... It's easy to leave someone in the gutter and say they deserve what they get because they haven't worked as hard as you have, but given their life you would have likely ended up in the same gutter.

Everyone needs a helping hand at some point, sure some people abuse "charitable" systems but if you revoke those systems because of the abusers then people who have potential to turn their life around don't get help either and society as a whole suffers for it.

Tying this back into the whole patent debate it's a matter of morality, products that benefit everybody should be available to everybody and everything should be done to further research without the primary motivator being profit but at the same time we must consider that the companies doing the research do need profit to continue their research so a balance must be struck... This basic logic applies to everything in life, it's not about right or wrong, it's about balance.

Airbozo

05-24-2011, 03:06 PM

Without state provided healthcare, more poor people die. That's a fact.

I don't think a poor work ethic should condemn people to death, nope. And I'll go to the grave thinking that.

I don't either.

I also don't think they deserve the same care as someone who works their ass off either. Basic health care sure. Even preventative care since that usually keeps costs down in the long run. Things like plastic surgery (for no real reason other than vanity), or any other elective surgery stuff. Hell, I would even push for all pubescent teens get the implanted birth control and only have it removed when/if they graduate High School, so we don't have to pay for all the unwanted teen pregnancies. (I will probably get flamed for that last statement)

Basically I just don't feel we as a society should be rewarding laziness or complacency but again, society should take care of its own. We are a "civilized" species after all.

JFK said it pretty well (even though he plagiarized the line somewhat); "And so my fellow Americans, ask not what your country can do for you; ask what you can do for your country."

I am a very strong believer in that statement.

I must point out that I was born into and raised by a family that prided itself on scamming the system. Most of my Siblings, Mother, Aunt, Cousins, etc, worked harder at scamming the welfare and medicare system than they would working a regular job. They still do. I have zero respect for them because of it.

Airbozo

05-24-2011, 03:14 PM

...It's easy to leave someone in the gutter and say they deserve what they get because they haven't worked as hard as you have, but given their life you would have likely ended up in the same gutter.

We all make our own choices in life and we should all have to live with those choices. My choice given a certain obstacle would probably be different than your choice.

Everyone needs a helping hand at some point, sure some people abuse "charitable" systems but if you revoke those systems because of the abusers then people who have potential to turn their life around don't get help either and society as a whole suffers for it.

Society also suffers greatly from the scammers, including those that really need the help.

Tying this back into the whole patent debate it's a matter of morality, products that benefit everybody should be available to everybody and everything should be done to further research without the primary motivator being profit but at the same time we must consider that the companies doing the research do need profit to continue their research so a balance must be struck... This basic logic applies to everything in life, it's not about right or wrong, it's about balance.

Here is the thing though and it goes back to my original post on this subject; Humans by nature are only out for themselves. Changing this would be like trying to change the ocean tides. We have to learn to work with it and use it to societies advantage. Opening a patent to the world because it would benefit everybody is not the right way to go about it. Where would the incentive be for ANY money to be invested when someone else could come along and make money off of your research or basic patent. You are right, there needs to be a balance, but who decides what is balanced?

RogueOpportunist

05-24-2011, 03:29 PM

You are right, there needs to be a balance, but who decides what is balanced?

Well therein lies the problem that has plagued us since the beginning of time, as you point out we are not naturally beings of balance, we are beings of excess... Does that mean we are doomed to fail? Who knows... The only thing I know for sure is the struggle of existence isn't going away any time soon so it's a good idea to stop what you are doing and enjoy those little moments of tranquility when they present themselves. :up:

Kayin

05-24-2011, 03:35 PM

xr4man

05-24-2011, 04:02 PM

i was actually thinking specifically of you and your family when i said

"on the other hand though, if someone had circumstances beyond their control, then i have no problem with my hard earned tax dollars going to help them out." you are 100% right, not many people have the dough laying around to pay for the surgeries you and your fam need just to live.

my problem is with people that laze their way through life thinking they deserve free handouts from the government which in turn comes from the rest of us who actually work to pay our taxes.

RogueOpportunist

05-24-2011, 04:25 PM

my problem is with people that laze their way through life thinking they deserve free handouts from the government which in turn comes from the rest of us who actually work to pay our taxes.

Yeah but the real problem is that is not the majority of the population, it is a minority contingent, for the most part social programs do work to help those in need, this is the same argument I see the right use in the media all the time, they take the 10% minority and call it the 90% majority and then take the 90% majority and make it out to be the 10% minority... You have to take the good with the bad but there isn't "that" much bad.

Anyone that is against social health systems isn't justified in saying they are against them because of the freeloaders when good upstanding people are dying as a result of their beliefs, leaving families to struggle with massive debt and increasing the overall poverty level of the country... If you have to support a few freeloaders to help millions of deserving families isn't it worth it? Isn't that cost justified? Even if 50 cents out of every dollar you put into the system went to someone who didn't deserve it wouldn't the 50 cents that went to Kayin and his family be worth the cost? None of us have the millions of dollars Kayin needs, but none of us would miss 20 or 30$ out of our paychecks either and no matter where that money goes that 20 or 30$ would at least ensure someone like Kayin had a better chance... Isn't that something worth having?

My Father has Parkinson's Disease, he was a Firefighter for over 30 years and risked his own life to save others god only knows how many times, now as a reward for putting himself in harms way he's slowly going to degenerate into what I can only say isn't a pretty picture... If it wasn't for being in Canada he would be for lack of a better word... f-cked... Why? Because Fighterfighter's don't get paid 600,000 dollars a year, they don't even make the 6 figure mark at all... It's a blue-collar job... Go talk to any of the guys who tried to help at ground zero after Sept. 11th who now have heart conditions and respiratory ailments and coincidentally also don't have proper health-care how they feel about facing a slow lingering death because helping them might help a few "freeloaders"... The arguments against socialized health-care are ALL invalid, flawed or not, being against any system that could help these people is just morally wrong.

P.S. I'm not saying anything directly about you, your statements or your beliefs because I honestly don't know what your stance on the whole thing is, I'm just replying to certain notions you put forth.

Airbozo

05-24-2011, 05:01 PM

Then there are those of us that worked for years, paid in and then something happened to them. Like finding my aorta is blowing up like a balloon. Not something you have control over.

The problem is that I hear every day about the people abusing the system, when honestly more people have real issues that can and will (and often do) kill them and they get no health care because even if they're working they can't afford it. Very few people can afford some things-my heart surgery will be close to a million dollars. You got that lying around? I sure don't. So since I can't pay, should I just die and leave a baby and wife? There are plenty of people who say yes. I'm pretty sure if it happened to them the tables would turn. Let alone cases like my son, whose care is well into the millions by now-he'll possibly never be able to work, so should we just euthanize him since he'll never pay taxes? I've been told yes by a few people-but where does that leave us? Somewhere south of human, by my estimation.

In a culture like that, I'd withhold discoveries knowing that it will be used solely as a moneymaking vehicle and any help rendered no matter how necessary is completely secondary. If I can't make it freely available, I will find a place I can.

Some of us would eat the costs of R&D (and I do know how high they are, thanks) to ensure that people would truly benefit without strings attached.

Kayin, All of us agree that the situation you and your son are in ( and many others) are exactly the situation we (as a collective society) would be providing care for because we are supposed to be a civilized society and take care of those that cannot (key word) provide for themselves. This is part of what makes humans better than the other species on the planet. We can CHOOSE to take care of our sick and wounded instead of culling them from the herd.

The specific abusers of the system are those that CAN contribute to society, but knowingly choose not to, then expect handouts for nothing.

I know this is getting off topic...

As to paying for R&D on a personal basis, I do support certain activities that benefit mankind as a whole. Cancer research, MS, Alzheimer, etc., but in the end my donations will end up funding a company that will turn around and take that medical breakthrough and make tons of money from it.

One idea is that IF a company takes public funds for research, the results of that research should fund, first, the company's loss plus a little profit (for incentive, otherwise the risk would not be worth it), then be open to the public, much the way the GNU licensing works.

RogueOpportunist

05-24-2011, 05:12 PM

The specific abusers of the system are those that CAN contribute to society, but knowingly choose not to, then expect handouts for nothing.

Wall Street? :D

Airbozo

05-24-2011, 05:41 PM

Yeah but the real problem is that is not the majority of the population, it is a minority contingent, for the most part social programs do work to help those in need, this is the same argument I see the right use in the media all the time, they take the 10% minority and call it the 90% majority and then take the 90% majority and make it out to be the 10% minority... You have to take the good with the bad but there isn't "that" much bad.

Agree with the first part of this sentence, but completely disagree with the second part. The problem is not a mere 10%, it is much much larger. I know this from first hand experience. I put the figure closer to 50/50 from what I have personally experienced and see every day.

Anyone that is against social health systems isn't justified in saying they are against them because of the freeloaders when good upstanding people are dying as a result of their beliefs, leaving families to struggle with massive debt and increasing the overall poverty level of the country... If you have to support a few freeloaders to help millions of deserving families isn't it worth it? Isn't that cost justified? Even if 50 cents out of every dollar you put into the system went to someone who didn't deserve it wouldn't the 50 cents that went to Kayin and his family be worth the cost? None of us have the millions of dollars Kayin needs, but none of us would miss 20 or 30$ out of our paychecks either and no matter where that money goes that 20 or 30$ would at least ensure someone like Kayin had a better chance... Isn't that something worth having?

While I do make an OK living (the result of hard work, dedication and not giving up), $20-30 IS a big deal to me. That is the difference between getting to work and not.

My Father has Parkinson's Disease, he was a Firefighter for over 30 years and risked his own life to save others god only knows how many times, now as a reward for putting himself in harms way he's slowly going to degenerate into what I can only say isn't a pretty picture... If it wasn't for being in Canada he would be for lack of a better word... f-cked... Why? Because Fighterfighter's don't get paid 600,000 dollars a year, they don't even make the 6 figure mark at all... It's a blue-collar job... Go talk to any of the guys who tried to help at ground zero after Sept. 11th who now have heart conditions and respiratory ailments and coincidentally also don't have proper health-care how they feel about facing a slow lingering death because helping them might help a few "freeloaders"... The arguments against socialized health-care are ALL invalid, flawed or not, being against any system that could help these people is just morally wrong.

P.S. I'm not saying anything directly about you, your statements or your beliefs because I honestly don't know what your stance on the whole thing is, I'm just replying to certain notions you put forth.

My neighbor is a firefighter at the beginning stage of his career and makes six figures including OT. He also has a very good pension system and will have good medical when he retires. He does not live in Canada and will have better medical than any social program could provide.

I am not saying that I am against the system and again we have gotten WAY off topic here. I want the system to be fixed and I do NOT believe that the proposed changes will fix it. I do however believe that it is a step in the right direction. At least something is being done.

Again, back to the topic at hand, Someone has to pay for the development of IP. It is not free. Should those that fund research just have to write it off "For the good of humanity"? Who does make the money then?

I also think the time line needs to be looked at. Shorten it to something more feasible. This would still allow the company that got the patent to have a substantial head start into any R&D before other companies were allowed to use the IP.

Airbozo

05-24-2011, 05:44 PM

Wall Street? :D

LOL!

RogueOpportunist

05-24-2011, 06:23 PM

While there are always exceptions, the average salary of a firefighter in the U.S. is in the 30,000$ to 75,000$ range depending on area, if you know someone "starting" at 100k+ they are an officer and are not representing the national average, using one exceptional example as a means to try and discredit average national statistics doesn't help anything... The "I know a guy who knows a guy so you're wrong" logic never has any actual statistical fact to back it up and believing that sort of rhetoric is why the American populace is so divided when they should be unified against those who are taking their liberties in the name of profit by trying to convince them that "that guy" is the national average and that individuals are only poor temporarily, eventually you will become rich like everyone else in the country... So long as you play by their rules and put them in power.

I know you likely didn't mean it to sound like it did but a basic N.Y. Firefighter makes a littler over 43k to start, officers of course make more (Lt. is about 100k) but without officer status a N.Y. firefighter would need to be on the job for 5 years before he gets anywhere near 100k with his fringe benefits and N.Y. pays their firefighters very well in comparison to some other cities... Here's the link (http://www.nyc.gov/html/fdny/html/community/ff_salary_benefits_080106.shtml) for salary information... I don't want to drag this out but to be perfectly honest I find the "I know a guy" defense used to invalidate the truth when it comes to something of this nature slightly offensive... Again I don't think that is how you meant it to sound but that's how it comes across, I mean if the point wasn't to invalidate my statement why mention your neighbour at all?

If the average firefighter was so well looked after why did Republicans feel the need to block a 7.4 billion dollar health-care bill intended to aid the workers of Sept 11th? What was a 7.4 billion dollar health-care bill even doing on the table if the private system was looking after them so well?... It's because your essential services and military already have socialized healthcare and many of them still can't get proper treatment because the deadbeats bleeding the system dry aren't in Detroit or Louisiana... They're in Washington.

Airbozo

05-24-2011, 06:54 PM

While there are always exceptions the average salary of a firefighter in the U.S. is in the 30,000$ to 75,000$ range depending on area, if you know someone "starting" at 100k+ they are an officer and are not representing the national average, using one exceptional example as a means to try and discredit average national statistics doesn't help anything... The "I know a guy who knows a guy so you're wrong" logic never has any actual statistical fact to back it up and believing that sort of rhetoric is why the American populace is so divided when they should be unified against those who are taking their liberties in the name of profit by trying to convince them that "that guy" is the national average and that individuals are only poor temporarily, eventually you will become rich like everyone else in the country... So long as you play by their rules and put them in power.

I know you likely didn't mean it to sound like it did but a basic N.Y. Firefighter makes a littler over 43k to start, officers of course make more (Lt. is about 100k) but without officer status a firefighter would need to be on the job for 5 years before he gets anywhere near 100k with his fringe benefits and N.Y. pays their firefighters very well in comparison to some other cities... Here's the link (http://www.nyc.gov/html/fdny/html/community/ff_salary_benefits_080106.shtml) for salary information... I don't want to drag this out but to be perfectly honest I find the "I know a guy" defense used to invalidate the truth when it comes to something of this nature slightly offensive... Again I don't think that is how you meant it to sound but that's how it comes across, I mean if the point wasn't to invalidate my statement why mention your neighbour at all?

Not sure how you twisted my words into me trying to prove you wrong on anything.

The "I know a guy" information I put out there was for the same reason you brought up "I know a guy" in the first place, to provide an example of a persons situation. People keep bringing up socialized medicine like it is the cure all. It is not and has it's own set of problems as well. What most people don't realize is that in the US if you are sick you can get the medical treatment you need. Is it perfect? Hell no. No system is and I would wager that few are any better.

The rest of your post? What?