Patents - Friend or foe of capitalism?

[RonPaulIsGreat]

Patents in my opinion, should only apply to physical objects and real physical processes.
Copyright should only apply to creative works, as in math equations, procedures, and functions in software should not be copyrightable or patentable, nor the output thereof, unless such output is largely the consequence of creative input, such as in the case of directing a program through the process.

Copyright should last 20 years or less and patents the same length of time as copyrights.

All digital programs released for sale should be required to have a means of facilitating payment for such works regardless of the source from which they are derived.

If the government maintains that copyright is required, then those wanting copyright should be required to submit a copy of such work to the government, or else the default position is that it is not copyrighted, and public domain, the time period from such release should be no greater than 7 days to being submitted into the government archive of copyrighted works. The copyrighted works database would be required to be fully searchable by the public, and explicitly state the owner, the expiration date of the copyright, and a price to license such work in various formats. This rights system would be required to be fully automated.

I could live with that, but todays system is a joke, and if the choice is the present system or no system I'd select no system.

 

[hazek]

Patents in my opinion, should only apply to physical objects and real physical processes.

Just like the idea of a minimal government this is also a slippery slope that will eventually lead right back to where we are today.

 

[RickyJ]

Software patents, foe, hardware patents, friend as long as it is limited to 3 years.

 

[LibertyEagle]

Just like the idea of a minimal government this is also a slippery slope that will eventually lead right back to where we are today.

As will anarchy.

 

[psi2941]

while i agree we should get rid of all electronics/software patients what about drug companies? i heard they spend millions/billions for research and development and it takes like 5-15 years to bring a new drug to market.

while i do like the idea of some IP it should be limited to 5 years max. if your sorry ass can't capitalize on a new idea, you should not be a business man.

also all the new patients that are being issued should not be issued. the patients are being issued so easily. when i watch the show "shark tank" and see all those "patent" it makes my blood boil.

one example that was soo out of line, was http://www.technologyenabledclothing.com/licensing.shtml

he basically owns the patent to have headphones holes in clothes.

 

[presence]

Patents protection as a means to protect a market for a SHORT TERM in order to recover R&D = FRIEND


Patent protection that lasts for years and years, patents that exists on technology with no short term plan for development, that exist long after products have become profitable, patents that are bought and sold without intent to develop products. and patents that suppress technology which would advance the human race but risk elimination of otherwise useless, but profitable technology = FOE.

Which type of patent protection do we have? Hrmm....

presence

 

[fisharmor]

while i agree we should get rid of all electronics/software patients what about drug companies? i heard they spend millions/billions for research and development and it takes like 5-15 years to bring a new drug to market.

How much of that time and money is spent jumping through regulatory hoops?
How much of that time and money is spent maintaining the state's monopoly control over what is and is not a legal drug?
How much of that time and money is spent imprisoning people for attempting alternatives?

Is medicine in any way a free market in this country?
If not, how can we look at the way things currently are in medicine and expect that to be some sort of indicator as to whether or not freedom will work?
I don't think it makes much sense to look at an element of society which has been pretty completely poisoned by state intervention and use that as an argument in favor of more state intervention.

If we're going to talk drug patents, we need to face the uncomfortable reality that maybe we don't need some of these drugs.
Can't watch 30 minutes of TV without ads for drugs. Drugs to sleep, drugs to wake up, drugs to feel good about yourself, drugs to pay attention, drugs for boners.
And there's a fricking weed that grows everywhere that can help you get through cancer, but using it lands you in a rape cage.

This is not the market at work.

 

[echebota]

Foe all the way.

Please take a look at this book:
http://levine.sscnet.ucla.edu/general/intellectual/against.htm

The author gives very thoughtful and balanced explanation on why IP slows down the progress (art and science) , increases hugely cost of doing business for everyone (huge share goes to lowers and government), and even hurts most inventors - the very group IP is claimed to protect.

Arguments for IP that I saw in this thread and in the media over the years actually empirically don't hold water.

 

[ProIndividual]

That's an excellent point. That is fraud, and should be dealt with as such. When it's done in a university, for example, the consequence is some sort of academic discipline-often expulsion.


This though, isn't so solid. No. 2 is already a legitimate crime-fraud. No 3 is a failure because this is actually NOT how information "moves" in the real world. When you give some information away (say a book), their ownership gives them the right to create as many copies as they desire.

Here's No.3 again:

3) that copies of copyright material only go one party removed from lawful recipoents (because that's how it works in the real world). If you give it away to someone else, or resell it, they should be able to go one party away via borrowing/file sharing...but not more. I don't care if 1,000,000,000 people get it, as long as it's only one party removed from the lawful owner. .

So I'm a little confused...but I'm sure you can help.

When I buy a book, I own it. I can only physically allow one person to borrow it at a time and cannot copy it (nor would I because it's time consuming). So this is a one-party removed borrow. If I give the book away, now they can also lend it out since it is theirs (if they lent it out and it was mine that would be wrong, obviously). That again, is a one party removed borrow. Online I feel that it should also be limited via some software or format or something to one party removed borrowing. I'm not saying it should be one book one borrow...I'm saying it should be I own it, and 10,000 or more people can borrow it from me for free by file sharing it. BUT they can't then file share that book themselves, as they borrowed it (albeit permanantly, essentially) and don't own it. If they want to own it, I have to surreneder my copy to them and my rights to let others borrow it, thereby changing who owns the book. They can also just buy the book. I understand this wouldn't stop file sharing, it would just slow it down, as after I seeded the book and had a copy myself, I could then change the ownership to another person who could seed it and share it, and then he could do the same, and so on. But this one party removed thing will slow the saturation process so that people who take the time to write a book can get more out of the market uyntil it's totally saturated via file sharing.

Maybe I'm splitting hairs here...but it seems if I can buy a book and then make it free to everyone instantly, then why would anyonbe but one person buy each book. Seeing as how it takes a lot of time and effort to write a decent book, this would have two predictable results....crap books being cranked out non-stop, shorter books being cranked out non-stop, or no books being cranked out. I think the third is unlikely, as collectors will always buy books, and I know also that some new people are brought into the market by accessing free stuff they never would of paid for at first, then fall in love with it, and decide they want to pay for it. BUT, for authors to make a living I cannot see them keeping books as long as they are now or as good. Eventually books will be 50-100 pages and crap mostly...kind of like how music is getting (just saying). The songs used to be longer and musicians had more talent (this is my view anyways)...now it's 2 minute songs and the genres I've always liked are being saturated with crap so even very good DIY artists can't make a living without touring (not everyone who is great artist has a huge fan base...in fact pop music blows and is the largest fan base).

Thanks for the help...I'm still working through my beliefs on IP, as you can see.

 

[Paul Or Nothing II]

As will anarchy.

That's why I support minimal government with voluntary funding, best of both worlds

 

[Knighted]

Patents have their pros and their cons. Providing an entity with exclusive rights to initially market and sell their product without fear of competition reduces their risks and allows them a large enough cushion to at least recapture in profits the money that went into that product's development. In that sense, IP could be seen as encouraging innovation. IP also protects smaller companies that have more hurdles to overcome in their initial stages from simply having their products stolen, copied, outproduced, outdeveloped, and outright devoured by a giant corporation. When the patent system is abused though, IP can be used as a tool to stifle competition, price gouge the consumer, and create a bunch of money leeching lawsuits to the benefit of lawyers. Overall, I think the patent system is probably a force of good, but it needs some more tuning.

 

[rpwi]

while i agree we should get rid of all electronics/software patients what about drug companies? i heard they spend millions/billions for research and development and it takes like 5-15 years to bring a new drug to market.

That is a little bit trickier...and of all industries...I think they make the best case for patents.

I like the idea of rewarding companies like drug companies that truly put in a lot of effort to create a great product. The problem is there are a ton of contentious patent issues in the drug industry...and a lot of obvious stuff is getting patented. Also, the university system is massively subsidizing the drug industry as are many noble but ignorant charities.

The delay the drugs have in getting into the market is due to the FDA which is highly political and subjective (they've really interferred with the natural remedy market). My vote is to cancel the FDA...let individuals decide for themselves what is risky and not...cancel the patents and call it a wash as the two should largely offset each other.

Just the biggest issue with drug patents is the danger of obvious cures being patented and then the government giving a corporation exclusive ability to withhold and produce such a cure. We're seeing genes being patented, natural cures being patented by drug companies, and this is a big mess that I think can only be cured by yanking patents.

 

[Knighted]

The delay the drugs have in getting into the market is due to the FDA which is highly political and subjective (they've really interferred with the natural remedy market). My vote is to cancel the FDA...let individuals decide for themselves what is risky and not...cancel the patents and call it a wash as the two should largely offset each other.

Abolishing the FDA would be a horrible idea, for two reasons.

The first reason is the placebo effect. Regardless of a medicine's efficacy, a certain percentage of the population will feel better while taking it, even if it's nothing more than water pills. Some studies have shown this percentage to be as high as 40%. Ask yourself this: what good is a consumer-regulated medicine market when almost 1 out of every 2 consumers thinks their medicine is working when it's really not? Any huckster can put a fraudulent medicine on the market, and for all intents and purposes, it will appear to be working to your average consumer who purchases many of their medicines (particularly herbal/natural) on the advice of a friend.

The second reason that abolishing the FDA is a terrible idea is the desperation factor. People with serious illnesses such as cancer will buy -anything- that pedals itself as a cure, no matter if it is dirt that is bottled up and put into capsules. People do not think rationally in such cases, and this opens the door wide open for unscrupulous people to drain the sick person for every dime they are worth since there are no federal standards to prove that the medicines work. Moreover, there is no recourse for the consumer, since without the studies that the FDA mandates, it would be prohibitively expensive to prove that the medicine doesn't work in a court. Just look at the herbal market right now to get an inkling of what the drug market in the US would look like without the FDA. There are pills out there advertised to cure everything under the sun. Something in the realm of maybe 5% or less actually do some good, and these are typically palliative effects. And who knows what kind of harm they are actually doing, since the unregulated herbal market requires no studies on side effects or efficacy.

Want an example of a drug market without the FDA? Take a look at China, where they are sticking powdered baby flesh into capsules and marketing it as the next Viagra. I kid you not.

 

[GeorgiaAvenger]

I take a middle of the road. It should not be permanent, but you should get first crack at it.

It is a tough situation.

 

[Roy L]

Curious to see what the people think...

I am amazed and gratified to see the great majority of posters in this thread have seen the light, and understand that while IP monopolies may be a friend of "capitalism," they are a foe of liberty, free markets, justice, prosperity and technological progress.

On the flip-side if government does not award exclusive access to an idea...and nobody else would have thought of it...then the inventor is not afforded the proportionate economic awards for his creativity and effort.

How so? He gets exactly the reward he earns in the market. He just doesn't get government to violate others' rights to liberty for his profit.

I know and have worked with people who rely on patents and copyrights for their business models, and I have made money on IP myself. Everything I have seen convinces me that there is no rational justification for it. It primarily functions as a way for rich, greedy takers to take from the productive without making any commensurate contribution to production in return. The inventor who makes any significant money from patents is very rare. The patent lawyer or patent troll company owner who gets rich from patents is far more common.

I know, personally, a top engineer whose team designed most of the switches the Internet ran on in the 1990s and early 2000s, and whose name is on dozens of patents. At one point he was not even allowed to read about other companies' technology, and spent most of his time defending suits by patent trolls. A system that does that is evil. Full stop.

 

[Roy L]

while i agree we should get rid of all electronics/software patients what about drug companies? i heard they spend millions/billions for research and development and it takes like 5-15 years to bring a new drug to market.

Drug patents are one of the WORST examples of IP abuse. They make medical care far more expensive, and they prevent researchers from looking into promising lines of research that won't result in patents. There is virtually no research into use of natural nutrients to treat disease, because natural nutrients can't be patented. There is virtually no research into use of human body chemicals like hormones to treat disease, because they can't be patented. The research that IS done tends to be focused on new ways of delivering the same old drugs. Study after study has found that although new drugs that are under patent are prescribed more than older drugs for the same condition (thanks to huge promotion budgets financed by patent profits), they are typically no better than the old drugs, and are often worse. Furthermore, the prospect of profits from patented drugs motivates researchers to ignore or cover up data that indicate the drug is ineffective or dangerous.

Drugs are the VERY LAST EXAMPLE you can use to justify patents.

 

[tttppp]

Abolishing the FDA would be a horrible idea, for two reasons.

The first reason is the placebo effect. Regardless of a medicine's efficacy, a certain percentage of the population will feel better while taking it, even if it's nothing more than water pills. Some studies have shown this percentage to be as high as 40%. Ask yourself this: what good is a consumer-regulated medicine market when almost 1 out of every 2 consumers thinks their medicine is working when it's really not? Any huckster can put a fraudulent medicine on the market, and for all intents and purposes, it will appear to be working to your average consumer who purchases many of their medicines (particularly herbal/natural) on the advice of a friend.

The second reason that abolishing the FDA is a terrible idea is the desperation factor. People with serious illnesses such as cancer will buy -anything- that pedals itself as a cure, no matter if it is dirt that is bottled up and put into capsules. People do not think rationally in such cases, and this opens the door wide open for unscrupulous people to drain the sick person for every dime they are worth since there are no federal standards to prove that the medicines work. Moreover, there is no recourse for the consumer, since without the studies that the FDA mandates, it would be prohibitively expensive to prove that the medicine doesn't work in a court. Just look at the herbal market right now to get an inkling of what the drug market in the US would look like without the FDA. There are pills out there advertised to cure everything under the sun. Something in the realm of maybe 5% or less actually do some good, and these are typically palliative effects. And who knows what kind of harm they are actually doing, since the unregulated herbal market requires no studies on side effects or efficacy.

Want an example of a drug market without the FDA? Take a look at China, where they are sticking powdered baby flesh into capsules and marketing it as the next Viagra. I kid you not.

Chinese traditional medicine has survived 5,000 years without the FDA. With all the regulations out there, western medicine still hasn't caught up with CTM. My guess is the FDA is providing much of a benefit.

China actually produces a much better quality of herbs than the U.S. and other capitalist countries. Because China has the death penalty there, they can't just throw in bogus stuff in their pills and claim its something its not. The acupuncturist I went to only purchased herbs from China for just this reason.

 

[Jovan Galtic]

You cannot "own" an idea.

 

[heavenlyboy34]

You cannot "own" an idea.

Thread winner.

 

[fisharmor]

Thread winner.

I said that first.
You'll be hearing from my lawyer.