Intellectual Property...thoughts?

[Airbozo]

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.

BTW: I could not finish that video. That guy just rants too much in too many different directions...

[dr.walrus]

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]

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]

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.

[dr.walrus]

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]

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.

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]

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

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]

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]

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]

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.