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

[Abu Babu Bubabu]

An article today about an American Chinese scientist who was accused of violating intellectual property laws.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/10/us/politics/fbi-xi-xiaoxing.html

The FBI has always created a lot of crime when they should be doing the opposite.

In the 1950s the most powerful people in the U.S. saw communism as the biggest threat. Communism, by itself, is obviously not a real crime. It is an opinion, a belief. But it was the focus of the FBI for many years. In fact the number one financial contributor to the U.S. communist party in the 1950's was... the FBI. They had so many undercover agents pretending to be communists that they were its largest source of revenue.

Today one big "crime" they focus on is intellectual property. That is the main concern of the most powerful business lobbies, so laws were passed to convince people there is something called 'intellectual property rights' and if you make money from somebody else's intellectual property then you are a criminal. Those laws have been quietly expanding for decades.

Obviously restricting the use of ideas is not a path towards developing a country.

History http://www.opensecrets.org/news/issues/intellectual_property/

Definition https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intellectual_property

U.S. government / lobby sites
https://www.state.gov/e/eb/tpp/ipe/enforcement/index.htm

 http://www.wipo.int/portal/en/

 http://www.phrma.org/advocacy/intellectual-property

Intellectual freedom sites

https://visionscarto.net/who-the-u-s-industrial-lobbies
"Each year, the United States Trade Representative issues ​the Special 301 Report on Intellectual Property (IP). This ​report, an essential tool in the US trade policy regarding intellectual property, puts pressure on countries that are deemed “not compliant” with the global regime of patents and copyright."

"It is largely influenced by five industrial lobby groups — Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America (PhRMA), ​Biotechnology Industry Organization (BIO), Business Software Alliance​ (​BSA), International Intellectual Property Alliance​ (​IIPA), and the US Chamber of Commerce’s Global IP Center (USCC)​ —, who submit comments to USTR, listing the countries they want to be scrutinized."

http://techrights.org/2017/02/15/cipu-lobbying-on-patents/

[kalodu]

IP is a necessary evil, without it there will be little new research and development if everyone can freely steal your research and ideas. A lot of development costs a lot of money.

I do however believe it is in need of reform, particularly in certain fields where it does the opposite of fostering development it restricts it. For example patents that are held for the sole reason of preventing development or companies that buy patents simply to sue others for using something similar.

[maxcpow]

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

[fryger]

I do however believe it is in need of reform, particularly in certain fields where it does the opposite of fostering development it restricts it. For example patents that are held for the sole reason of preventing development or companies that buy patents simply to sue others for using something similar.

Exactly, I can think of a few cases when Nvidia was just sitting on new developments and technologies, simply because their current tech was "good enough" and AMD couldn't do anything cause that technology was under patent.

[aoluain]

IP is a necessary evil, without it there will be little new research and development if everyone can freely steal your research and ideas. A lot of development costs a lot of money.

I do however believe it is in need of reform, particularly in certain fields where it does the opposite of fostering development it restricts it. For example patents that are held for the sole reason of preventing development or companies that buy patents simply to sue others for using something similar.

I agree with this also!
I have first hand experience of this but on a very small scale.

about 10 years ago I came up with a little photography tool after creation and testing
I discovered someone else had patented something similar, not the same but had
factored in all manners of similar items which rendered my creation redundant while
this patent existed.

It was just a patent that was never brought to production but hampered the development
of my idea.

So in the big business world I can see how this could be a major source of frustration.

However I do agree with the concept of IP but as has been mentioned it needs updating.

[Xester]

An article today about an American Chinese scientist who was accused of violating intellectual property laws.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/10/us/politics/fbi-xi-xiaoxing.html

The FBI has always created a lot of crime when they should be doing the opposite.

In the 1950s the most powerful people in the U.S. saw communism as the biggest threat. Communism, by itself, is obviously not a real crime. It is an opinion, a belief. But it was the focus of the FBI for many years. In fact the number one financial contributor to the U.S. communist party in the 1950's was... the FBI. They had so many undercover agents pretending to be communists that they were its largest source of revenue.

Today one big "crime" they focus on is intellectual property. That is the main concern of the most powerful business lobbies, so laws were passed to convince people there is something called 'intellectual property rights' and if you make money from somebody else's intellectual property then you are a criminal. Those laws have been quietly expanding for decades.

Obviously restricting the use of ideas is not a path towards developing a country.

History http://www.opensecrets.org/news/issues/intellectual_property/

Definition https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intellectual_property

U.S. government / lobby sites
https://www.state.gov/e/eb/tpp/ipe/enforcement/index.htm

 http://www.wipo.int/portal/en/

 http://www.phrma.org/advocacy/intellectual-property

Intellectual freedom sites

https://visionscarto.net/who-the-u-s-industrial-lobbies
"Each year, the United States Trade Representative issues ​the Special 301 Report on Intellectual Property (IP). This ​report, an essential tool in the US trade policy regarding intellectual property, puts pressure on countries that are deemed “not compliant” with the global regime of patents and copyright."

"It is largely influenced by five industrial lobby groups — Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America (PhRMA), ​Biotechnology Industry Organization (BIO), Business Software Alliance​ (​BSA), International Intellectual Property Alliance​ (​IIPA), and the US Chamber of Commerce’s Global IP Center (USCC)​ —, who submit comments to USTR, listing the countries they want to be scrutinized."

http://techrights.org/2017/02/15/cipu-lobbying-on-patents/

Intellectual property rights is a kind of law that protects the right of the original author to be in complete possession and ownership of his ideas and invention. But it doesnt mean that if you have the same idea with that person who has a patent you will be considered a violator of the law. There will be standards as to how they will judge if you are copying his ideas.

[Sithara007]

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.

[Abu Babu Bubabu]

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. ...

This absurdity is pumped by the lobbies but nobody seems to actually think it through and see if it is true. It is not.

Intellectual property laws stifle brilliant people and slow innovation dramatically.

When the focus is on capturing a small hill that you can 'own', nobody runs for the mountains.

It should be enough for people to reject the idea of intellectual property on purely ethical grounds, the immorality of a person pretending to own one idea that was derived from the ideas of others, or wanting to prevent others from free use of an idea.

 

[Basmic]

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.

[darkangel11]

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.

Commercial is one thing, but what about using it to get a degree, in form of plagiarism?
I oppose plagiarism and I think there should be some laws protecting intellectual property, but I also oppose abusing these laws to prosecute sharing of digital media.
It's stupid that a person can go to a friend and watch a movie with him at his house, or take that dvd, that he bought, and watch it at home, but cannot share it with someone in the internet.

[Abu Babu Bubabu]

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.

Commercial is one thing, but what about using it to get a degree, in form of plagiarism?
I oppose plagiarism and I think there should be some laws protecting intellectual property, but I also oppose abusing these laws to prosecute sharing of digital media.
It's stupid that a person can go to a friend and watch a movie with him at his house, or take that dvd, that he bought, and watch it at home, but cannot share it with someone in the internet.

If you copy somebody else's work, writing for example, and claim that it is your own, in a word 'plagiarism', then you are lying, which is a separate issue.

It has never been acceptable in universities to lie regarding information, whether lying about the source of the information, lying about its content or lying about some other aspect. There has never been a university or other organization that said "we are not sure whether lying and / or plagiarism are okay".

There has never been a need, and hopefully never will be, to decide whether a student can lie in order to prove expertise. It is a subject people agree on, students lying is not good. But that is a completely separate issue from 'intellectual property'.

[TheCoinGrabber]

I don't see the US unjustly using this issue against China, they did engage in industrial espionage in the past.

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

Not only that Disney was quite hypocritical in making money out of "open source" materials, aka folktales. I bet anyone can get sued for making money out anything with the Disney princesses on them.

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.

Not to mention this might discourage progress since you just need to come up with one good product and live of that the rest of your life. It also puts a damper on others who might want to improve on existing proprietary processes.

[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.

[Abu Babu Bubabu]

... The world was doing fine before it was invented.

I copy that phrase to emphasize it, and I offer no money to you for doing so. Thus, I can pay you in bitcoin for using your idea and I do not even need your bitcoin address.

[aoluain]

do you not think there has to be some protection for people who create and develop?

suppose you invent the scissors after a lot of development consisting of time and expense and
show it to me as a potential investor . . .

"Thanks lads, that was a great idea, there's the door, I'll produce this myself,
come back to me with your next invention and I'll just rip you off and copy it, again...simple!"

 

[Abu Babu Bubabu]

do you not think there has to be some protection for people who create and develop?

suppose you invent the scissors after a lot of development consisting of time and expense and
show it to me as a potential investor . . .

"Thanks lads, that was a great idea, there's the door, I'll produce this myself,
come back to me with your next invention and I'll just rip you off and copy it, again...simple!"

 

Honestly, it depends on what your priority is.

If your goal is to produce a small minded society of petty people who look at 'innovation' as a financial issue then intellectual property is a useful concept.

If you want society to really develop though it is probably better not to use laws to monetize and restrict ideas.

'

As for your scissors idea, most people who have 'invented' stuff are adult enough to realize that they were only building on ideas that had preceded. If somebody came to me and said he wanted credit for inventing the scissors, or whatever, and wanted protection from other people possibly using that idea for popular benefit, I would kick him in the nuts and tell him to invent stronger pants.

[giantdragon]

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.

[Abu Babu Bubabu]

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?

[Sithara007]

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? And why someone else should profit out of this invention?

[Zicadis]

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

And why someone else should profit out of this invention?

simple, they have the financial power to make your invention go mainstream and the believe in your invention more than you do