This is the thread where you discuss free market, americans and libertarianism

[myrkul]

This seems to deny the "mine" behavior.  I like my lawnmower, and feel better knowing that no squatters have slept in my bed.  As to how I would know, my security company would have photos.

"Mine" is a recognition of scarcity. If you can conjure at will a lawnmower that is identical in every way to yours, can it be said to be scarce? As for the squatter, I agree that he did violate your property rights. He deprived you of the use of your property (regardless of the fact that you weren't, at the time, using it), so he should leave some additional compensation. But that is exactly why it is a bad comparison to IP. you're not being deprived of anything when someone uses your invention.

I am being deprived of my rightful slice of market share.

Hardly. Does Folgers deprive Starbucks of their "rightful slice of market share"? Or vice-versa?

The 2A can also be interpreted to mean that without individuals with arms, there is no free state.

But that's not the words they used. Words do matter, and they used "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." This implies a preexisting right which a law forbidding gun ownership would infringe upon.

[FreedomEqualsRiches]

This seems to deny the "mine" behavior.  I like my lawnmower, and feel better knowing that no squatters have slept in my bed.  As to how I would know, my security company would have photos.

"Mine" is a recognition of scarcity. If you can conjure at will a lawnmower that is identical in every way to yours, can it be said to be scarce? As for the squatter, I agree that he did violate your property rights. He deprived you of the use of your property (regardless of the fact that you weren't, at the time, using it), so he should leave some additional compensation. But that is exactly why it is a bad comparison to IP. you're not being deprived of anything when someone uses your invention.

I am being deprived of my rightful slice of market share.

Hardly. Does Folgers deprive Starbucks of their "rightful slice of market share"? Or vice-versa?

In Canada, generic drug makers are not allowed to use the IP that big pharma made for 15 years after the the drug hits market.  If one has to spend many millions to develop something that can be exploited by someone else at almost zero cost, what incentive to invest in innovation?

[FreedomEqualsRiches]

This seems to deny the "mine" behavior.  I like my lawnmower, and feel better knowing that no squatters have slept in my bed.  As to how I would know, my security company would have photos.

"Mine" is a recognition of scarcity. If you can conjure at will a lawnmower that is identical in every way to yours, can it be said to be scarce? As for the squatter, I agree that he did violate your property rights. He deprived you of the use of your property (regardless of the fact that you weren't, at the time, using it), so he should leave some additional compensation. But that is exactly why it is a bad comparison to IP. you're not being deprived of anything when someone uses your invention.

I am being deprived of my rightful slice of market share.

Hardly. Does Folgers deprive Starbucks of their "rightful slice of market share"? Or vice-versa?

Folgers v/s Starbucks?  You can do better.  How about M$ v/s Apple v/s Samsung?  Android v/s Apple?

[myrkul]

This seems to deny the "mine" behavior.  I like my lawnmower, and feel better knowing that no squatters have slept in my bed.  As to how I would know, my security company would have photos.

"Mine" is a recognition of scarcity. If you can conjure at will a lawnmower that is identical in every way to yours, can it be said to be scarce? As for the squatter, I agree that he did violate your property rights. He deprived you of the use of your property (regardless of the fact that you weren't, at the time, using it), so he should leave some additional compensation. But that is exactly why it is a bad comparison to IP. you're not being deprived of anything when someone uses your invention.

I am being deprived of my rightful slice of market share.

Hardly. Does Folgers deprive Starbucks of their "rightful slice of market share"? Or vice-versa?

In Canada, generic drug makers are not allowed to use the IP that big pharma made for 15 years after the the drug hits market.  If one has to spend many millions to develop something that can be exploited by someone else at almost zero cost, what incentive to invest in innovation?

You didn't answer the question.

Folgers v/s Starbucks?  You can do better.  How about M$ v/s Apple v/s Samsung?  Android v/s Apple?

Both companies provide coffee to consumers. And you still didn't answer the question.

However: There is powerful incentive to be first in the marketplace. The more complex your product, the longer it will take to reverse engineer it. That time period, from introduction to the first appearance of reverse-engineered copies, is your limited-term monopoly. Your main complaint seems to boil down to the argument that you don't consider that to be long enough, and we should arbitrarily set some additional time to artificially impose a monopoly.

[FreedomEqualsRiches]

This seems to deny the "mine" behavior.  I like my lawnmower, and feel better knowing that no squatters have slept in my bed.  As to how I would know, my security company would have photos.

"Mine" is a recognition of scarcity. If you can conjure at will a lawnmower that is identical in every way to yours, can it be said to be scarce? As for the squatter, I agree that he did violate your property rights. He deprived you of the use of your property (regardless of the fact that you weren't, at the time, using it), so he should leave some additional compensation. But that is exactly why it is a bad comparison to IP. you're not being deprived of anything when someone uses your invention.

I am being deprived of my rightful slice of market share.

Hardly. Does Folgers deprive Starbucks of their "rightful slice of market share"? Or vice-versa?

In Canada, generic drug makers are not allowed to use the IP that big pharma made for 15 years after the the drug hits market.  If one has to spend many millions to develop something that can be exploited by someone else at almost zero cost, what incentive to invest in innovation?

You didn't answer the question.

Folgers v/s Starbucks?  You can do better.  How about M$ v/s Apple v/s Samsung?  Android v/s Apple?

Both companies provide coffee to consumers. And you still didn't answer the question.

However: There is powerful incentive to be first in the marketplace. The more complex your product, the longer it will take to reverse engineer it. That time period, from introduction to the first appearance of reverse-engineered copies, is your limited-term monopoly. Your main complaint seems to boil down to the argument that you don't consider that to be long enough, and we should arbitrarily set some additional time to artificially impose a monopoly.

Correct, I think it should be long enough to pay for R/D, implementation/production, marketing, plus a certain period of pure profit.

As far as coffee suppliers go, they both compete for market share, like car, wheat or phone providers.  As long as they leave each other's IP rights alone, all is good.  A new idea should be given the chance to provide profit for its developer, otherwise, if the developer has no chance for profit, why develop something in the first place?

[myrkul]

Correct, I think it should be long enough to pay for R/D, implementation/production, marketing, plus a certain period of pure profit.

It is. If it is not, you're not charging enough for it during your monopoly period. Of course, that will increase the incentive to reverse-engineer and compete....

As far as coffee suppliers go, they both compete for market share, like car, wheat or phone providers.

And providers of your new invention. Of which group, for a time, anyway, you are the sole member.

[FreedomEqualsRiches]

Correct, I think it should be long enough to pay for R/D, implementation/production, marketing, plus a certain period of pure profit.

It is. If it is not, you're not charging enough for it during your monopoly period. Of course, that will increase the incentive to reverse-engineer and compete....

In the case of pharmaceuticals, and chip design, my monopoly period needs to be quite years long.  Some things take millions do develop, but once developed, take pennies reverse-engineer and produce.  This being the case, I need some sort of enforced guarantee that I will have the opportunity to generate a profit before some 2nd or 3rd party just hijacks it, and sells it without having to spend all the money I did.

[kokjo]

Correct, I think it should be long enough to pay for R/D, implementation/production, marketing, plus a certain period of pure profit.

It is. If it is not, you're not charging enough for it during your monopoly period. Of course, that will increase the incentive to reverse-engineer and compete....

In the case of pharmaceuticals, and chip design, my monopoly period needs to be quite years long.  Some things take millions do develop, but once developed, take pennies reverse-engineer and produce.

funny! myrkul is killing people, by not giving incentives to people trying to save them.

[myrkul]

Correct, I think it should be long enough to pay for R/D, implementation/production, marketing, plus a certain period of pure profit.

It is. If it is not, you're not charging enough for it during your monopoly period. Of course, that will increase the incentive to reverse-engineer and compete....

In the case of pharmaceuticals, my monopoly period needs to be 7+ years long.  Some things take millions do develop, but once developed, take pennies to produce.

Then your profit margins once in production should be phenomenal, and you should be able to make up the R&D cost fairly quickly, if you're charging enough. As I said, if you're not making your money back, you're not charging enough.

[FreedomEqualsRiches]

Correct, I think it should be long enough to pay for R/D, implementation/production, marketing, plus a certain period of pure profit.

It is. If it is not, you're not charging enough for it during your monopoly period. Of course, that will increase the incentive to reverse-engineer and compete....

In the case of pharmaceuticals, and chip design, my monopoly period needs to be quite years long.  Some things take millions do develop, but once developed, take pennies reverse-engineer and produce.

funny! myrkul is killing people, by not giving incentives to people trying to save them.

Shouldn't you be busy planning acts of violence against Danish Cartoonists?

[Mike Christ]

funny! myrkul is killing people, by not giving incentives to people trying to save them.

[FreedomEqualsRiches]

Correct, I think it should be long enough to pay for R/D, implementation/production, marketing, plus a certain period of pure profit.

It is. If it is not, you're not charging enough for it during your monopoly period. Of course, that will increase the incentive to reverse-engineer and compete....

In the case of pharmaceuticals, my monopoly period needs to be 7+ years long.  Some things take millions do develop, but once developed, take pennies to produce.

Then your profit margins once in production should be phenomenal, and you should be able to make up the R&D cost fairly quickly, if you're charging enough. As I said, if you're not making your money back, you're not charging enough.

Once I sell dollar 1 worth of my product, someone else can sell it much cheaper, because they didn't have to develop it, thus ruining me.

[kokjo]

Correct, I think it should be long enough to pay for R/D, implementation/production, marketing, plus a certain period of pure profit.

It is. If it is not, you're not charging enough for it during your monopoly period. Of course, that will increase the incentive to reverse-engineer and compete....

In the case of pharmaceuticals, and chip design, my monopoly period needs to be quite years long.  Some things take millions do develop, but once developed, take pennies reverse-engineer and produce.

funny! myrkul is killing people, by not giving incentives to people trying to save them.

Shouldn't you be busy planning acts of violence against Danish Cartoonists?

what? that dude who draw a funny pic of a prophet from a religion i don't believe in?
why would i do that? he makes funny stuff, i have no reason to harm him.

[myrkul]

Correct, I think it should be long enough to pay for R/D, implementation/production, marketing, plus a certain period of pure profit.

It is. If it is not, you're not charging enough for it during your monopoly period. Of course, that will increase the incentive to reverse-engineer and compete....

In the case of pharmaceuticals, my monopoly period needs to be 7+ years long.  Some things take millions do develop, but once developed, take pennies to produce.

Then your profit margins once in production should be phenomenal, and you should be able to make up the R&D cost fairly quickly, if you're charging enough. As I said, if you're not making your money back, you're not charging enough.

Once I sell dollar 1 worth of my product, someone else can sell it much cheaper, because they didn't have to develop it, thus ruining me.

It takes time to reverse engineer a drug. Especially the process necessary to synthesize it. Then you've got to set up the process, and get the copy to market. The first buyer can't just turn around and magically start copying your pill.

[FreedomEqualsRiches]

Correct, I think it should be long enough to pay for R/D, implementation/production, marketing, plus a certain period of pure profit.

It is. If it is not, you're not charging enough for it during your monopoly period. Of course, that will increase the incentive to reverse-engineer and compete....

In the case of pharmaceuticals, my monopoly period needs to be 7+ years long.  Some things take millions do develop, but once developed, take pennies to produce.

Then your profit margins once in production should be phenomenal, and you should be able to make up the R&D cost fairly quickly, if you're charging enough. As I said, if you're not making your money back, you're not charging enough.

Once I sell dollar 1 worth of my product, someone else can sell it much cheaper, because they didn't have to develop it, thus ruining me.

It takes time to reverse engineer a drug. Especially the process necessary to synthesize it. Then you've got to set up the process, and get the copy to market. The first buyer can't just turn around and magically start copying your pill.

But the entire process, from the word go, is IP.
Bitcoins are also IP, I should add.

[myrkul]

But the entire process, from the word go, is IP.
Bitcoins are also IP, I should add.

Your point?

[FreedomEqualsRiches]

But the entire process, from the word go, is IP.
Bitcoins are also IP, I should add.

Your point?

My point is that if I spend millions developing something, and, once developed, it is easily reverse-engineered and put into production, I am broke, unless some form of IP recognition exists.

[Mike Christ]

But the entire process, from the word go, is IP.
Bitcoins are also IP, I should add.

Your point?

My point is that if I spend millions developing something, and, once developed, it is easily reverse-engineered and put into production, I am broke, unless some form of IP recognition exists.

Wouldn't that instead mean you do not pursue a drug which would cost millions to develop, if you weren't sure you could make your money back?  If enough people wanted it, couldn't a whole crowd of people fund the research?

[FreedomEqualsRiches]

Correct, I think it should be long enough to pay for R/D, implementation/production, marketing, plus a certain period of pure profit.

It is. If it is not, you're not charging enough for it during your monopoly period. Of course, that will increase the incentive to reverse-engineer and compete....

In the case of pharmaceuticals, and chip design, my monopoly period needs to be quite years long.  Some things take millions do develop, but once developed, take pennies reverse-engineer and produce.

funny! myrkul is killing people, by not giving incentives to people trying to save them.

Shouldn't you be busy planning acts of violence against Danish Cartoonists?

what? that dude who draw a funny pic of a prophet from a religion i don't believe in?
why would i do that? he makes funny stuff, i have no reason to harm him.

Please read this, so you know where we AnCaps are coming from, in a very basic sense.  Its a quick read.

http://daviddfriedman.com/The_Machinery_of_Freedom_.pdf

The premise is that law is a commodity like any other, and a free market will provide better law than a central command/control structure that only makes a one-size-fits-all product.  Think of Lada v/s Porsche.

[myrkul]

But the entire process, from the word go, is IP.
Bitcoins are also IP, I should add.

Your point?

My point is that if I spend millions developing something, and, once developed, it is easily reverse-engineered and put into production, I am broke, unless some form of IP recognition exists.

And my point is that it is not as easy as you seem to assume, and that law cannot, and should not, make up for a poor business model.