VOTE * Do you believe in "Intellectual Property" laws?

[aoluain]

Hmmmmm some very good points above especially when it comes to helping humanity.
I may be starting to reconsider my opinion....

What comes to mind is a recent scenario here in ireland where a group of around 600
people suffer from Cystic Fibrosis and a new drug ORKAMBI is so expensive that the
Government initially couldnt afford to procure it.

Should the pharmaceutical companies for instance be allowed to basically hold
society to account to fund their profits?

If this wasnt the case would we have the drugs and medical tools etc. We have today?

I hope i havent moved the goalposts, i think this still comes down to IP and how.
The pharma companies operate......

[af_newbie]

It is very difficult to answer this sensitive question. If we give no importance to IP rights, then it will discourage brilliant people and there will be less and less innovation. But if it gets too strict, then a lot of poor people will be unable to afford medicines, technology, and entertainment.

There are many selfless brilliant people that would release inventions for free.

Problem is that the system is controlled by greed.

Most geniuses do not care that much about the money.   

[Mometaskers]

Corporations have lobbied IP laws to protect their monopolies and stiff real innovations!

You can incentivize creativity with another means - state funding, crowdfunding, donations, advertising, support etc.

Creativity does not have to be 'incentivized'. It just has to be 'not stifled'.

The key to a dog running is to take off it's leash, not "give it something" or "teach it something".

What's up with the mentality that the government has anything whatsoever to do with creativity, aside from being able to harm it?

I think not incentivize but support. I mean, just look at artists, they create a civilization's material culture. They can only create if their not running on an empty stomach and that's how patronage became a big thing in the past. Artists these days would either have to find funding via commissions, sell their works, or have a part-time job.

That's why I think some degree of IP protection is needed for our innovators to keep on working. If they'll be receiving income from one of their advancement, then they're free to work on other projects without worrying over the usual maintenance for living.

It is very difficult to answer this sensitive question. If we give no importance to IP rights, then it will discourage brilliant people and there will be less and less innovation. But if it gets too strict, then a lot of poor people will be unable to afford medicines, technology, and entertainment.

There are many selfless brilliant people that would release inventions for free.

Problem is that the system is controlled by greed.

Most geniuses do not care that much about the money.   

@Sithara the problem with cost could be solved with proper legislation not related to IP. For example, medicines can have a price ceiling. The most worrying about stricter IP is its chilling effects on new entrants. It's a dog-eat-dog world out there. Big companies are know to use IP to sue smaller players over the littlest things.

@af_newbie Tesla would agree with that. Damn Edison!

[countryfree]

Despite owning a lot of IP, I voted no.

Intellectual property was invented by rich people so that they could keep their wealth while the poor would remain poor. IP's also a recent invention. The world was doing fine before it was invented.

So, what do you think? If someone invents a technology or a drug, then he should not have the right to profit out of it?

Naturally the inventor is obviously entitled to the right to profit but its up to the inventor to find a way to  be part of the project of course not using back doors. Look at who the bitcoin technology has grown without IP considered and how altcoin developers profit from their inventions by a simple premine to keep them part of the project. To be honest bitcoin technology has revolutionized how open-source tools can help anyone profit without IP barriers

Inventing something is only the beginning. With technology getting more and more sophisticated, it's getting more and more difficult to copy. Besides the invention, you need to be smart enough to produce it efficiently. Look at the hybrid cars from Toyota. Their hybrid technology is heavily patented, but even without those patents, I doubt another car company could make a car as good at the same cost.

[Lieldoryn]

I'm sure the Chinese could easily this problem. But I think a hybrid car is not very in demand, therefore the Chinese do not. Much cheaper to make electric cars and the Chinese they have long been doing.

[BADecker]

Yes, I believe in intellectual property laws.

If someone expresses his intellectual property, it isn't entirely his anymore.

However, if he makes a deal with someone to keep it private, and the other person DOESN'T keep it private, then the contract has been broken. In that case contract law applies.

[kalodu]

Corporations have lobbied IP laws to protect their monopolies and stiff real innovations!

You can incentivize creativity with another means - state funding, crowdfunding, donations, advertising, support etc.

Creativity does not have to be 'incentivized'. It just has to be 'not stifled'.

The key to a dog running is to take off it's leash, not "give it something" or "teach it something".

What's up with the mentality that the government has anything whatsoever to do with creativity, aside from being able to harm it?

So who should pay the big costs of developing a movie? Because while individual piracy is rampant, television stations and cinemas can't get away with copying their work without pay so the movie studios survive.

Who should pay the costs of developing a drug? These cost enormous amounts of money to develop safely, and while there are issues with current patent laws, at the very least they ensure drugs are continually developed despite some of them running into costs into the billions.

Should writers make books for free? If anyone can freely copy their books then the publishers won't pay the writer after he sends in a copy for review.

[freedomno1]

IP seems necessary, but for example I don't think Mickey Mouse should be IP forever.

This IP needs a reasonable use period but not one that makes it unusable in the Public Domain parody works can get around that but the rule should be for active usage to a reasonable period of time.
Mickey Mouse being an IP forever or songs from mainstream artists from 20 years ago or 1997 like the first Britney Spears songs etc should be fair game for public use.

As it is corporations have an incentive to stifle creativity for profit so on practice against IP as it is used currently but not in principle.

As an example when it is applied to medicine .... our current system is broken when it comes to alternative medicine.
If a new drug must be certified every-time using our current system it would severely limit the real world applications of phage therapy and customized treatments which can save peoples lives.
http://www.ctvnews.ca/health/how-doctors-could-use-viruses-to-kill-drug-resistant-bacteria-1.3412045

--
The World Health Organization estimates that antimicrobial resistance will kill at least 50 million people per year by 2050. Researchers hope Patterson’s remarkable recovery story could spark renewed interest for mainstream medicine to explore phage therapy as a treatment against drug-resistant bacteria.

“We’re going to need an additional alternative method of treating deadly bacteria, and so I see phage therapy as a front-runner for that alternate medicine,” said Jon Dennis, a microbiologist with the University of Alberta.

Dennis said Patterson’s case was extraordinary because it was the first time in North America that modern science paid attention to phage therapy as a viable treatment.

“There has been difficulty getting funding to do basic phage therapy research. The problem lies in that a lot of the phage therapy data that we have is historical, it’s anecdotal and it hasn’t been performed in the modern era,” he said.

But phage therapy is hardly a one-size-fits-all solution. Doctors need to create a unique combination of different types of bacteriophage for a patient’s particular case.

“They’re not simple to use,” Schooley said. “They seem to be relatively safe to give, but they’re going to be difficult to develop from both the research perspective, and also from the regulatory perspective, because each patient’s phage cocktail is a different cocktail.”

Despite the challenges, doctors are optimistic that the century-old method could be one way to fight the growing global threat of antibiotic resistance.

[sportis]

I think it is particularly important for new creators, artists and inventors to be protected and rewarded for their work. Many times, however, this measure it is abused because it is the result of a legal fight between big companies trying to monopolize a product for their big financial interests.

[TheCoinGrabber]

I think it is particularly important for new creators, artists and inventors to be protected and rewarded for their work. Many times, however, this measure it is abused because it is the result of a legal fight between big companies trying to monopolize a product for their big financial interests.

True, there should be a balance between assuring creators that they have control of their work and investors that they'll get money out of it. IP should protect innovation but not stifle it.

[muffinbiller]

Intellectual Property in the United States has become increasingly more important in the last decade. The right to own one's genius is not a new concept. However, with the arrival of the digital age, it has become much harder to remain in control of one's intellectual property. Intellectual property has grown from the need to protect one's new invention, such as soap, to the need to protect a slogan or a color. In other words, intellectual property rights no longer protect solely the interest of preserving a trade secret; it is now the interest to preserve one's monetary gain.
The first form of intellectual property law was patent law. In 1790, Congress passed the first patent laws. These laws were modeled after European, patent, common law. Before Americans had the right to their intellectual property, it belonged to the King of England. If colonists wanted the rights to their inventions, they had to petition the state or ``the governing body of the colony[1].'' The first United States Patent Grant was signed by George Washington on July 31, 1790. Thomas Jefferson was the inspector, and together they issued the first American patent. Which was for a new method for making Potash. In 1790, the price of a patent was four dollars[2].

The Four Areas Covered by Intellectual Property: Patents, Copyrights, Trademarks and Trade Secrets.

Of the four areas, patents are the most common. Although they are difficult to obtain, they hold the strongest protection. Patents are grants from the government giving exclusive rights to ``make, use, and sell a product for 20 years.'' Their attributes include providing strong protection, and total exclusivity. Their downsides include long expensive, technical processes, and inventors must make all the details of their product known to the public. One must apply to the Federal government for a patent. Patents protect ``novel, useful, non-obvious and intangible'' ideas[3].

[nfcmgjh]

Intellectual Property in the United States has become increasingly more important in the last decade. The right to own one's genius is not a new concept. However, with the arrival of the digital age, it has become much harder to remain in control of one's intellectual property. Intellectual property has grown from the need to protect one's new invention, such as soap, to the need to protect a slogan or a color. In other words, intellectual property rights no longer protect solely the interest of preserving a trade secret; it is now the interest to preserve one's monetary gain.
The first form of intellectual property law was patent law. In 1790, Congress passed the first patent laws. These laws were modeled after European, patent, common law. Before Americans had the right to their intellectual property, it belonged to the King of England. If colonists wanted the rights to their inventions, they had to petition the state or ``the governing body of the colony[1].'' The first United States Patent Grant was signed by George Washington on July 31, 1790. Thomas Jefferson was the inspector, and together they issued the first American patent. Which was for a new method for making Potash. In 1790, the price of a patent was four dollars[2].

The Four Areas Covered by Intellectual Property: Patents, Copyrights, Trademarks and Trade Secrets.

Of the four areas, patents are the most common. Although they are difficult to obtain, they hold the strongest protection. Patents are grants from the government giving exclusive rights to ``make, use, and sell a product for 20 years.'' Their attributes include providing strong protection, and total exclusivity. Their downsides include long expensive, technical processes, and inventors must make all the details of their product known to the public. One must apply to the Federal government for a patent. Patents protect ``novel, useful, non-obvious and intangible'' ideas[3].

It sounds like you copy/pasted from the website of some ip lawyer.

Start with your first sentence "Intellectual Property in the United States has become increasingly more important in the last decade.". Important to whom? Lawyers? Lobbyists?

Nobody disputes that short lived patents can be helpful. The question is more whether it is good to try to intimidate scientists into following a very low level, short term set of laws meant only to protect a few major industries.

Artists and entertainers, for example, are not going to starve if they are good, but especially they are not going to try to squeeze every last dollar out of their art if they are decent.

For scientists even more true. Look at the link in the original post https://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/10/us/politics/fbi-xi-xiaoxing.html

A group of fbi agents does not like that guy, for whatever reason, so they use the law to target him. That is the only use of laws like that, targeting people or preventing others from getting some benefit you have. You can argue up and down but really common sense is what you should use rather than rhetorical tricks.

The scientist in that article might or might not have been brilliant, but I guarantee that he is less brilliant now, less productive, more cautious. As are many of his colleagues who are now aware that they must be wary of attacks from the fbi. Is it really worth it? America has been driven into the ground by petty attacks on harmless things while the really harmful things are acceptable. Got an idea and want to develop it? Be careful. Got a badge and want to show a scientist that you are bigger than him? Go for it.

[HabBear]

IP protection is necessary. It's not evil. It actually promotes the growth of ideas, which benefits us all in the evolution of ideas, processes, technology, services, etc.

If we don't protect our ideas from those that want to steal those ideas and make money off them we will force people with great ideas to keep them to themselves or to charge more money for the products and services.

For those of you don't believe in intellectual property protection laws, do you believe it's OK and fair for one to steal your good idea and make money off of it?

[nfcmgjh]

IP protection is necessary. It's not evil. It actually promotes the growth of ideas, which benefits us all in the evolution of ideas, processes, technology, services, etc.

If we don't protect our ideas from those that want to steal those ideas and make money off them we will force people with great ideas to keep them to themselves or to charge more money for the products and services.

For those of you don't believe in intellectual property protection laws, do you believe it's OK and fair for one to steal your good idea and make money off of it?

100% of the ideas you have are derived, directly or indirectly from others' ideas in the past.

If you follow intellectual property to the extreme then you are not allowed to have any ideas, because they will directly or indirectly lead to your profiting from an idea somebody else had previously.

I get that you want to support "the intellectual property agenda" because you believe they are a powerful lobby and they have won most legal challenges so far.

The only people who support intellectual property laws are those who benefit from them directly and those who want to be on the side of the people who seem to be powerful at the moment.

Do you think that people with guns have an inherent right to eat better than those who have no guns?

Would you like a lobby to help you think it through?

[canvan]

Who is going to spend a lot of time and money creating something if others can just copy their product freely without paying them a dime? IP isn't necessary for things that cost little to create but for other things that requires large investment its either IP or a government has to fund the development of those products.

[nfcmgjh]

Who is going to spend a lot of time and money creating something if others can just copy their product freely without paying them a dime? IP isn't necessary for things that cost little to create but for other things that requires large investment its either IP or a government has to fund the development of those products.

The people who have taken control of your mind would have other people believe that the basis of intellectual property laws is a desire to enable more creativity, when the opposite is true. Your mind and thinking have been co opted by a powerful lobby and you are, in effect, a zombie.

George Orwell would have a field day.

Do you really believe that companies and individuals will stop inventing things if intellectual property laws are given their proper place?

Will the best singers and artists really say "Well, I guess I will quit singing/creating and get a job pumping gas?

Intellectual property thinking leads to mediocrity, and America is starting to excel at that, if nothing else.

[countryfree]

So who should pay the big costs of developing a movie? Because while individual piracy is rampant, television stations and cinemas can't get away with copying their work without pay so the movie studios survive.

Good. Actors and everyone in the movie industry is overpaid. I've illegally downloaded hundreds of movies, and I invite all readers to do the same. Ditto for music. Musicians should earn money performing, not selling recordings. Actors should be making money playing in theaters. Think that the world would count many more actors, musicians and singers than there is today, if all performance was live. Many artists cannot make a career today, because they can't compete with the promotion from the big stars of the largest studios.

[Lancusters]

Who is going to spend a lot of time and money creating something if others can just copy their product freely without paying them a dime? IP isn't necessary for things that cost little to create but for other things that requires large investment its either IP or a government has to fund the development of those products.

In order to copy the product and start production of the necessary large finances. The Chinese economy received a good boost on this one, but that did not stop the Americans, the Japanese and the Europeans to establish a production there. I don't know what to do with the growing economy of China. I say this to the fact that the absence of copyright law and cheap labor is the key to prosperity in our world.

[minhlong357200]

Intellectual property is protected only in case if the person uses it for commercial purposes. I support the protection of intellectual property but on the other hand a lot of countries where people are very poor and they cannot afford to pay real money. On the other hand China in General is the king of plagiarism and provides fakes the whole world.

[freedomno1]

IP protection is necessary. It's not evil. It actually promotes the growth of ideas, which benefits us all in the evolution of ideas, processes, technology, services, etc.

If we don't protect our ideas from those that want to steal those ideas and make money off them we will force people with great ideas to keep them to themselves or to charge more money for the products and services.

For those of you don't believe in intellectual property protection laws, do you believe it's OK and fair for one to steal your good idea and make money off of it?

People keep good ideas to themselves all the time and some great ideas may never see mass adoption simply because they are not promoted sufficiently to get to scale which is why it takes so long for innovation to become mainstream it takes skill to turn that good idea into money and good marketing, a few episodes of Dragons Den or Shark Tank demonstrate that.

Your argument however leans more towards patents when you mention stealing a good idea, as the argument is not on a reproduction of a work independently from the original but a creation. It does apply to music and movies which can be a copy of the original but you should clarify that a bit more.

On the topic I am amused that the Pirates were Pirated for those that don't know the current Pirates of The Caribbean is under siege so it seems like a good point to bring up. Also sigh the mainstream still thinks all you can get with Bitcoin are reddit gold cards that should be another topic of discussion....and made.

Today in news that practically demands that we repeat the word “pirate” as many times as possible, Deadline is reporting that hackers have stolen a copy of Pirates Of The Caribbean: Dead Men Tell No Tales and they’re threatening to release it online if Disney doesn’t pay a ransom. These movie pirates aren’t just looking for treasure chests full of doubloons, though—they want “an enormous amount of money” paid in Bitcoin, presumably so they can all live like kings with lifetime Reddit Gold subscriptions (or whatever else someone would buy with Bitcoin).

http://www.avclub.com/article/hackers-demand-disney-pay-bitcoin-ransom-or-theyll-255376