Against intellectual monopoly

[K]

http://levine.sscnet.ucla.edu/general/intellectual/againstfinal.htm

:bowdown:

[I<3NBA]

i support intellectual freedom and freedom of information.

[MavsSuperFan]

Without Patents, copyrights, trademarks, etc why would anyone invent/do anything creative?

lets say you invented a pill, eg viagra. You have probably had to put in a ton of money into research and development. You probably have had numerous failures and setbacks. All those scientists you have paid to conduct trials isn't free.

You bring your completed product to market after maybe a decade of costs and zero revenue. than a competitor copies your pill. obviously he can charge a lower price than you, because he doesn't have to recover the research and development costs and doesn't have to provide a return to nearly as many investors.

Without intellectual property rights, why wouldn't we all just wait and copy from others?

basically I am asking you what your alternative is to prevent a huge second mover advantage?

Edit: and incase you missed my point. With a huge second mover advantage, no one wants to move first. Nothing gets invented in the first place.

[Raymone]

Land owners don't produce or contribute anything, and neither do inventors!

[Dresta]

Without Patents, copyrights, trademarks, etc why would anyone invent/do anything creative?

lets say you invented a pill, eg viagra. You have probably had to put in a ton of money into research and development. You probably have had numerous failures and setbacks. All those scientists you have paid to conduct trials isn't free.

You bring your completed product to market after maybe a decade of costs and zero revenue. than a competitor copies your pill. obviously he can charge a lower price than you, because he doesn't have to recover the research and development costs and doesn't have to provide a return to nearly as many investors.

Without intellectual property rights, why wouldn't we all just wait and copy from others?

basically I am asking you what your alternative is to prevent a huge second mover advantage?

Edit: and incase you missed my point. With a huge second mover advantage, no one wants to move first. Nothing gets invented in the first place.
You over-simplify: the patent system is clearly a problem and needs to be tweaked in some way if innovation is not to continue to slow.

Innovation prizes have been a useful introduction for sure.

'The three pillars that enable patent trolling are: the existence of absurd patents; the forbidding cost of the legal process; and the business model of buying up patents as assets in their own right, rather than building blocks for innovation. National Public Radio’s This American Life recently discussed all three elements but focused on the last: the story is more compelling with a bad guy, after all. One contributor even compared patent trolls to a mafia collecting protection money.'

http://timharford.com/2011/08/taming-the-patent-troll/

Patents have become a big problem - that shouldn't be ignored.

[MavsSuperFan]

You over-simplify: the patent system is clearly a problem and needs to be tweaked in some way if innovation is not to continue to slow.

Innovation prizes have been a useful introduction for sure.

'The three pillars that enable patent trolling are: the existence of absurd patents; the forbidding cost of the legal process; and the business model of buying up patents as assets in their own right, rather than building blocks for innovation. National Public Radio’s This American Life recently discussed all three elements but focused on the last: the story is more compelling with a bad guy, after all. One contributor even compared patent trolls to a mafia collecting protection money.'

http://timharford.com/2011/08/taming-the-patent-troll/

Patents have become a big problem - that shouldn't be ignored.

Whats the alternative. I have considered the problems with patents before. it seems smaller than the problem created by the huge second mover advantage in the absence of IP rights. EG. Without copyrights why would George RR Martin expend the effort to write ASOIAF? I mean without copyrights couldnt you and I reprint his books and undersell him?

[kNIOKAS]

Ok I won't let you get away with posting a link. NEGGED.

Please offer a summary, critical thoughts and/or your take on the subject. Now it's a link to the contents of some random book, I don't have time to try guessing what you meant by it.

[DCL]

allow patents but reduce the the expiration period. this still incentivizes the originator to innovate to an extent. but if the originator can't profit within a certain reasonable period, the information will be public domain.

patent expiration periods should also be structured according to classes. some can be longer, some can be shorter. they have to figure out what's reasonable for the patent holder to hoard and what's beneficial for the public to acquire and take it to another level.

easier said than done.

[KeylessEntry]

Without Patents, copyrights, trademarks, etc why would anyone invent/do anything creative?


Patents, Copyrights and Trademarks are a relatively recent human creations.

The ancient Greeks and Egyptians did not have patents, did they do anything creative?

Perhaps some people are driven by more than just financial incentives.

[MavsSuperFan]

Patents, Copyrights and Trademarks are a relatively recent human creations.

The ancient Greeks and Egyptians did not have patents, did they do anything creative?

Perhaps some people are driven by more than just financial incentives.
fair enough, but are you arguing that financial incentives aren't a huge motivator for the majority of innovations? Is it a coincidence that since IP rights were encoded into our laws the rate of innovations has skyrocketed? Just because innovation and invention is possible without IP laws, it doesnt discredit them.

[KeylessEntry]

fair enough, but are you arguing that financial incentives aren't a huge motivator for the majority of innovations? Is it a coincidence that since IP rights were encoded into our laws the rate of innovations has skyrocketed? Just because innovation and invention is possible without IP laws, it doesnt discredit them.

No, if you read my post, I am most certainly NOT arguing that. I think I was pretty clear with what I was saying in my post, you dont have to try to put words in my mouth.

[MavsSuperFan]

No, if you read my post, I am most certainly NOT arguing that. I think I was pretty clear with what I was saying in my post, you dont have to try to put words in my mouth.
Just trying to clarify if you agreed with me that the profit incentive was much more important to innovation than any other factor. we agree that a minority of people dont need an economic incentive to expend effort :cheers:

[KeylessEntry]

Just trying to clarify if you agreed with me that the profit incentive was much more important to innovation than any other factor. we agree that a minority of people dont need an economic incentive to expend effort :cheers:

Well no, I wont claim to know what factor of innovation is the most important. No doubt profit incentive is important, other factors are important too.

[secund2nun]

You can't own ideas. The very same innovators ALWAYS will base their innovations on ideas and information that other people previously discovered. Patent law has skyrocketed costs in this country. Lawyers love it though.

At the very least the US patent system needs to be radically changed. Currently, like pretty much every other US system, it is built to favor corporations not the individual inventors.

[red1]

whats that? monopoly for smart ppl?

[I<3NBA]

Without Patents, copyrights, trademarks, etc why would anyone invent/do anything creative?

because it's fun? people are motivated not just by profit. imo, recognition or fame is more of a motivator than profit. remove profit incentive and people will still create, invent, innovate. that's why open software, freeware and all sorts of open source programs thrive. if your theory about profit incentive is so true, these things would not thrive at all. i have theorized for long that social recognition is a higher motivator than money for people.

the internet age has more than proven that people create because they want to. not because of profit motive. i just got my avy for free, done by aj who i'm probably sure is not motivated by profit. even getting reps for him is probably just a bonus.

it has come to a point that now, patents are preventing innovation and stagnating the progress of civilization.

[bdreason]

One of my College professors wrote a great book on the subject. If you're interested in the history of IP and patents, and how they actually restrict the progress of mankind, I'd suggest giving it a read.

http://www.amazon.com/Steal-This-Idea-Intellectual-Confiscation/dp/140396713X

[MavsSuperFan]

because it's fun? people are motivated not just by profit. imo, recognition or fame is more of a motivator than profit. remove profit incentive and people will still create, invent, innovate. that's why open software, freeware and all sorts of open source programs thrive. if your theory about profit incentive is so true, these things would not thrive at all. i have theorized for long that social recognition is a higher motivator than money for people.

the internet age has more than proven that people create because they want to. not because of profit motive. i just got my avy for free, done by aj who i'm probably sure is not motivated by profit. even getting reps for him is probably just a bonus.

it has come to a point that now, patents are preventing innovation and stagnating the progress of civilization.

Absolutely, and charity and churches used to be the only source of welfare for the poor. Some people will give generously to the poor. That doesnt mean welfare didnt greatly improve the lives of the poor. and if we went back to a charity only society, do your realize the consequences? Its lunacy to believe that economic incentives dont drive human behavior in the vast majority of circumstances.

Do you really believe a drug company would develop a drug if it did not expect to profit on it? I have never said there would zero invention without patent law. I am saying if you cant make a living at something, you need to invest time into doing something that will provide money. You cant live on recognition alone.

[DCL]

i agree with both sides. we have to find a balance to this problem.

without financial protection of innovation (patents), people or companies would not be as daring to take risks like spending billions of dollars on research to come up with something new. they need patents in place to protect their interests so they can pursue on their R&D and not face with little-or-nothing in return. that's basically a function of capitalism.

BUT, on the other hand, i definitely can imagine the potential dangers of patents in place. let's say a drug company discovers a drug that 100% of population in the future will depend on if they wish to live. let's pretend there'll be some epidemic disease that will wipe out all of humanity, and the only way to survive would be to take that drug. then whoever owns the permanent patent, in theory, will become rulers of society. they will be in position to absorb total transfer of wealth. it'll be the ultimate monopoly of monopolies. basically, if any man wants to live in the future, he will have to pay up for this drug or die. in this case, patents fail and do no good.

sounds like an bad science fiction movie. :lol