Intellectual Property - In All Fairness!

[FredericBastiat]

You are correct but that is an implementation problem.  Frederic's problem is more basic.  He wants to have the right to plagiarism.  He feels its an infringement of his liberty that he can't create a fizzy cola drink and sell it under the name Coca-Cola.

If by implementation problem you mean method, type, or construct of contract, then yes, it becomes a matter of what representations you make. If you agree with the other person that you will provide an "original work" (i.e. not plagiarized) and your work too closely resembles the work of another author, then you can decide amongst yourselves what restitution you might have to make. Likewise, this is also true for lying about the origins of a product (under contract) about an object you may or may not have produced yourself.

Fred, I notice you seem to have given up trying to justify your position.  Here is the question you ran away from in case you have forgotten.

Good effort.  Really - I admire your persistence Smiley But you need to try harder as life is hard and there is a small minority of people who are blatantly dishonest.

If one of these crooks gets the medicine into his hands and in flagrant breach of contract, publishes the formula, are you, as an innocent third party, then free to copy the formula and sell the new drug yourself?  Under the same brand name as the original investor?

If yes, the original investor is ruined and the world being the cruel place it is, you know this will happen every time.  And thus, the research stops unless there is a patent system.

Unless you have some alternative mechanism ?  I await your reply with interest.

I'm not running away, just doing things other than responding to you. In any case, my response is that you are not obligated (being an outside third party) to refrain from mimicking another persons work, nor causing your possessions from becoming functionally similar to those of another person regardless of the origins of their works. I guess competition is cruel. I do prefer cooperation just so you know, if that helps. Life isn't all about the money, right?

I believe, although I can't definitively prove, that the free flow of information in society, and the minimization of litigation which prevents the utilization of said information may improve production, reduce redundant cyclical errors (repeating the same errors or attempts) therby reducing costs, and overhead (government agencies, examiners, lawyers).  Resource management could be more effective.

Constraining information (which is a nearly infinite resource) as opposed to intentionally forcing it to become a scarcity, seems to me to be an unnecessary contrivance. It complicates and blurs the line between what thing belongs to who merely because someone, somewhere was the first to "author" it. By authoring, I mean to say a recomposition or molecular manipulation of the constituent parts of the physical material matter in your possession.

To infuse characteristics of private property with the characteristics of origin, pattern, function, composition, and time specificity as opposed to who is merely the first possessor of the object seems misguided and wholly inadequate to the theory of private property rights.

The theories of private property ownership and intellectual property concepts conflict. You are estopped if by establishing the theory of private property law, you then reverse yourself by enacting IP law that directly violates private property principles. Doing that, in my most humble opinion, truly is a living hell.

[1714305870]

1714305870

[1714305870]

1714305870

[1714305870]

1714305870

[1714305870]

1714305870

[1714305870]

1714305870

[1714305870]

1714305870

[gibson042]

The FDA regulations are there for a reason.  Bad drugs kill people.  If your idea is to allow unregulated drug sales is implemented, some people will die for no good reason.

Are you aware of just how often that happens right now, with FDA regulations?

The recalls on the list are generally Class I., which means there is a reasonable probability that the use of or exposure to a violative product will cause serious adverse health consequences or death.

We've actually reached the point where prescription drugs kill more people than prohibited ones!
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=prescription-drug-deaths&print=true
http://www.google.com/search?q=more+deaths+prescription+illegal

Regardless, it is at the very least questionable that pharmaceutical development requires patents, so please stop using that claim to defend the concept.

[Hawker]

The FDA regulations are there for a reason.  Bad drugs kill people.  If your idea is to allow unregulated drug sales is implemented, some people will die for no good reason.

Are you aware of just how often that happens right now, with FDA regulations?

The recalls on the list are generally Class I., which means there is a reasonable probability that the use of or exposure to a violative product will cause serious adverse health consequences or death.

We've actually reached the point where prescription drugs kill more people than prohibited ones!
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=prescription-drug-deaths&print=true
http://www.google.com/search?q=more+deaths+prescription+illegal

Regardless, it is at the very least questionable that pharmaceutical development requires patents, so please stop using that claim to defend the concept.

You can't simply assert that.  There is nothing to stop companies making drugs and foregoing patents right now. Feel free to point me to them - otherwise lets limit ourselves to the real world.

[Hawker]

You are correct but that is an implementation problem.  Frederic's problem is more basic.  He wants to have the right to plagiarism.  He feels its an infringement of his liberty that he can't create a fizzy cola drink and sell it under the name Coca-Cola.

If by implementation problem you mean method, type, or construct of contract, then yes, it becomes a matter of what representations you make. If you agree with the other person that you will provide an "original work" (i.e. not plagiarized) and your work too closely resembles the work of another author, then you can decide amongst yourselves what restitution you might have to make. Likewise, this is also true for lying about the origins of a product (under contract) about an object you may or may not have produced yourself.

Fred, I notice you seem to have given up trying to justify your position.  Here is the question you ran away from in case you have forgotten.

Good effort.  Really - I admire your persistence Smiley But you need to try harder as life is hard and there is a small minority of people who are blatantly dishonest.

If one of these crooks gets the medicine into his hands and in flagrant breach of contract, publishes the formula, are you, as an innocent third party, then free to copy the formula and sell the new drug yourself?  Under the same brand name as the original investor?

If yes, the original investor is ruined and the world being the cruel place it is, you know this will happen every time.  And thus, the research stops unless there is a patent system.

Unless you have some alternative mechanism ?  I await your reply with interest.

I'm not running away, just doing things other than responding to you. In any case, my response is that you are not obligated (being an outside third party) to refrain from mimicking another persons work, nor causing your possessions from becoming functionally similar to those of another person regardless of the origins of their works. I guess competition is cruel. I do prefer cooperation just so you know, if that helps. Life isn't all about the money, right?

I believe, although I can't definitively prove, that the free flow of information in society, and the minimization of litigation which prevents the utilization of said information may improve production, reduce redundant cyclical errors (repeating the same errors or attempts) therby reducing costs, and overhead (government agencies, examiners, lawyers).  Resource management could be more effective.

Constraining information (which is a nearly infinite resource) as opposed to intentionally forcing it to become a scarcity, seems to me to be an unnecessary contrivance. It complicates and blurs the line between what thing belongs to who merely because someone, somewhere was the first to "author" it. By authoring, I mean to say a recomposition or molecular manipulation of the constituent parts of the physical material matter in your possession.

To infuse characteristics of private property with the characteristics of origin, pattern, function, composition, and time specificity as opposed to who is merely the first possessor of the object seems misguided and wholly inadequate to the theory of private property rights.

The theories of private property ownership and intellectual property concepts conflict. You are estopped if by establishing the theory of private property law, you then reverse yourself by enacting IP law that directly violates private property principles. Doing that, in my most humble opinion, truly is a living hell.

So you acknowledge that its not safe to make an investment in drug research without intellectual property.  Fine.

Its all very well saying that you have a theory which says Intellectual Property is putting you in a living hell.  But I have a reality that intellectual property gives me Coca-Cola, Blackberries, Ford and as many consumer goods as I could ever want.  Cheaply.  Without any noticeable impact on my freedom.  If your ideas that remove consumer brands and research that leads to innovation were implemented, I would be worse off and for that reason, I'd never vote for it.  What is the point in making a change to society that is guaranteed to make me worse off? 

I'm sure you will say that doesn't matter to you but I can't see how your concept would ever be useful.  No democratic society will vote to end the present system of endless goodies at low prices.  And no dictator will want to pick a fight over something so arcane.  It seems a waste of time.

[NghtRppr]

http://www.homelandstupidity.us/2009/03/25/mary-ruwart-deadly-secrets-behind-soaring-pharmaceutical-prices/

Thanks for the link. The relevant part in the video is at 57:06 where the doctor speaking states that the pharmaceutical companies didn't need the patent system before FDA regulations. What mattered was being first-to-market because even when there was a second-to-market, the first-to-market still kept 80% to 90% of the customers. It was only because of the FDA regulations, which made the costs so high to develop new drugs, that the patent system became so important. In other words, get rid of the FDA at the same time you get rid of patents and we will have safe drugs, cheaper and faster. I think this is the nail in the coffin for intellectual property. Thanks again.

The FDA regulations are there for a reason.  Bad drugs kill people.  If your idea is to allow unregulated drug sales is implemented, some people will die for no good reason.

Watch the video in that link. The doctor estimates that 4.7 million people have died from delays by the FDA of drugs that were eventually declared safe. She estimates that another 4 to 16 million people were killed by not being allowed access to drugs that are safe but couldn't be jumped through the FDA's hoops. How many lives has the FDA saved? She says about 7,000 and even says that if that number is off by a factor of 100 that 700,000 people is still a lot less than 4.7 million people if you only count the delays. Some people will die either way. The way you're proposing makes drugs cost more, makes healthcare have to be rationed more sparingly and kills people. That's even ignoring the fact that government intervention in voluntary human interactions is immoral. All around, your way of doing things is bad.

[Hawker]

Bitcoin2cash - thats an implementation issue in your country. Here in the UK things work fine.

[hashman]

And thus, the research stops unless there is a patent system.

As pointed out here, that's false.

Its also ironic that such a false statement would appear in this forum..  as bitcoin itself is a nice example proving the statement false.  Imagine, an entire community working on high-tech important research.  And all without a king's guarantee of unfair profits at the end! 

Bitcoin is profitable right now and only getting better.  The difficulty is falling so now is the time to mine  

Asking for an investment of several hundred million dollars with zero return is an entirely different proposition.  BTW, most of us live in democracies where the government represents our wishes.  I don't know where you live but you have a King that makes your laws   Wow.

Who said anything about zero return? 

I claim that it is possible to make a profit even when competition is allowed.  Do you disagree with this statement?   

Yes, intellectual property laws are holdovers from monarchy, when the payments to "own" intellectual property would be made to the king.  Today they are made to the government in largely the same fashion, although the goverment no longer has as much power over the marketplace and so the power of the IP laws is dying (fortunately for the populace).  Also, look at the language used, e.g. "royalties". 

Are you defending the right to pay off government officials for monopoly control of a marketplace, and then suggesting that without said protectionism no investment could be made? 

[FredericBastiat]

So you acknowledge that its not safe to make an investment in drug research without intellectual property.  Fine.

Its all very well saying that you have a theory which says Intellectual Property is putting you in a living hell.  But I have a reality that intellectual property gives me Coca-Cola, Blackberries, Ford and as many consumer goods as I could ever want.  Cheaply.  Without any noticeable impact on my freedom.  If your ideas that remove consumer brands and research that leads to innovation were implemented, I would be worse off and for that reason, I'd never vote for it.  What is the point in making a change to society that is guaranteed to make me worse off? 

I'm sure you will say that doesn't matter to you but I can't see how your concept would ever be useful.  No democratic society will vote to end the present system of endless goodies at low prices.  And no dictator will want to pick a fight over something so arcane.  It seems a waste of time.

The definition of safe is to be free from harm or injury. If by that, you mean to be safe from competition, then no, no investment in any endeavor will ever be "safe". I should be free to compete with you on any thing. To compete is to offer an object or service of any kind that I possess or can physically provide to another interested party, sans government monopoly privilege. I have it, it's mine, you want it, I ask for payment, you either accept or reject it. The end.

My ideology does not remove consumer brands. I'm not going to force you to have no branding or labeling. You can label your private property however you choose, it's your private property after all. Compose, divide, manipulate, dispose and destroy it to your hearts content. I'm not going to stop you.

Do we need a definition of what freedoms are? Perhaps the impact on your freedoms you don't notice because you don't know what they are. If you were the only person on the planet, you'd have an infinite amount of freedom. With two or more people you have less. How much less, is the interesting question.

A democracy is just majority rule. Again we've gone over this before. I and my comrades, should they represent a majority, could make murder permissible, but we've agreed before, that isn't just. So, if were going to get past arguing over mere numerical superiority, can we move on to the more relevant argument regarding the validity of law for lawful sake?

[FredericBastiat]

roy·al·ty (roil-t)
n. pl. roy·al·ties
1.
   a. A person of royal rank or lineage.
   b. Monarchs and their families considered as a group.
2. The lineage or rank of a monarch.
3. The power, status, or authority of a monarch.
4. Royal quality or bearing.
5. A kingdom or possession ruled by a monarch.
6. A right or prerogative of the crown, as that of receiving a percentage of the proceeds from mines in the royal domain.
7.
   a. The granting of a right by a monarch to a corporation or an individual to exploit specified natural resources.
   b. The payment for such a right.
8.
   a. A share paid to a writer or composer out of the proceeds resulting from the sale or performance of his or her work.
   b. A share in the proceeds paid to an inventor or a proprietor for the right to use his or her invention or services.
9. A share of the profit or product reserved by the grantor, especially of an oil or mining lease. Also called override.

[Hawker]

So you acknowledge that its not safe to make an investment in drug research without intellectual property.  Fine.

Its all very well saying that you have a theory which says Intellectual Property is putting you in a living hell.  But I have a reality that intellectual property gives me Coca-Cola, Blackberries, Ford and as many consumer goods as I could ever want.  Cheaply.  Without any noticeable impact on my freedom.  If your ideas that remove consumer brands and research that leads to innovation were implemented, I would be worse off and for that reason, I'd never vote for it.  What is the point in making a change to society that is guaranteed to make me worse off? 

I'm sure you will say that doesn't matter to you but I can't see how your concept would ever be useful.  No democratic society will vote to end the present system of endless goodies at low prices.  And no dictator will want to pick a fight over something so arcane.  It seems a waste of time.

The definition of safe is to be free from harm or injury. If by that, you mean to be safe from competition, then no, no investment in any endeavor will ever be "safe". I should be free to compete with you on any thing. To compete is to offer an object or service of any kind that I possess or can physically provide to another interested party, sans government monopoly privilege. I have it, it's mine, you want it, I ask for payment, you either accept or reject it. The end.

My ideology does not remove consumer brands. I'm not going to force you to have no branding or labeling. You can label your private property however you choose, it's your private property after all. Compose, divide, manipulate, dispose and destroy it to your hearts content. I'm not going to stop you.

Do we need a definition of what freedoms are? Perhaps the impact on your freedoms you don't notice because you don't know what they are. If you were the only person on the planet, you'd have an infinite amount of freedom. With two or more people you have less. How much less, is the interesting question.

A democracy is just majority rule. Again we've gone over this before. I and my comrades, should they represent a majority, could make murder permissible, but we've agreed before, that isn't just. So, if were going to get past arguing over mere numerical superiority, can we move on to the more relevant argument regarding the validity of law for lawful sake?

Branding is about EXCLUSIVE naming.  Remove exclusivity and you have no brand.

If your ideas remove my freedom to have branded goods, exclusively branded goods, then they interfere with the way I have chosen to live.  Luckily I am in a majority so there is no danger.

Law and rights are social constructs designed to make life better than anarchy.  As you say, the majority can decide that killing someone is OK and in fact do so every day to 1000s of unborn people.  If you disagree with this, the way to deal with it is to persuade people life would be better if the law changed.

Since your idea doesn't improve life, there is no real point in trying to decide if we need laws or rights or any other implementation details.  Its a waste of time. 

[FredericBastiat]

I'm noticing a real division in many of the comments about Law, in the threads in the Politics & Society sections.

Here's the general theories/beliefs posited:

1) Law's are devised to determine what actions between persons and their possessions are consensual, and if not, is prohibited.

2) See (1) and,

• Consensual interpersonal acts, or acts between a human and a non-human object, defined as offensive (i.e. same-sex marriage, child pornography, etc.) is prohibited,
• Specific characteristics (composition, function, appearance, etc.) that an object has, independent of its application, and by definition offensive, is prohibited. (i.e. intellectual property, violent video games, guns, etc.)
  

What's your preference of law, and why?

[FredericBastiat]

Branding is about EXCLUSIVE naming.  Remove exclusivity and you have no brand.

If your ideas remove my freedom to have branded goods, exclusively branded goods, then they interfere with the way I have chosen to live.  Luckily I am in a majority so there is no danger.

Law and rights are social constructs designed to make life better than anarchy.  As you say, the majority can decide that killing someone is OK and in fact do so every day to 1000s of unborn people.  If you disagree with this, the way to deal with it is to persuade people life would be better if the law changed.

Since your idea doesn't improve life, there is no real point in trying to decide if we need laws or rights or any other implementation details.  Its a waste of time.  

Do all of those unborn people get to have a chance to "cast" their vote? Kinda hard to do when you're dead, huh? I am attempting to persuade you. Your IP laws conflict with my personal property, and hence interfere with the way I have chosen to live. Get your chocolate out of my peanut butter please.

Posit a solution to the IP vs. PP issue and maybe we can move on to more important matters.

[Hawker]

Branding is about EXCLUSIVE naming.  Remove exclusivity and you have no brand.

If your ideas remove my freedom to have branded goods, exclusively branded goods, then they interfere with the way I have chosen to live.  Luckily I am in a majority so there is no danger.

Law and rights are social constructs designed to make life better than anarchy.  As you say, the majority can decide that killing someone is OK and in fact do so every day to 1000s of unborn people.  If you disagree with this, the way to deal with it is to persuade people life would be better if the law changed.

Since your idea doesn't improve life, there is no real point in trying to decide if we need laws or rights or any other implementation details.  Its a waste of time.  

Do all of those unborn people get to have a chance to "cast" their vote? Kinda hard to do when you're dead, huh? I am attempting to persuade you. Your IP laws conflict with my personal property, and hence interfere with the way I have chosen to live. Get your chocolate out of my peanut butter please.

Posit a solution to the IP vs. PP issue and maybe we can move on to more important matters.

The issue is solved  Rights are social constructs designed to make life better than anarchy.  That includes property rights - we create the rights and we create their limits.  In this case, the right is limited by the greater right of intellectual property.  

What you are proposing is to remove the intellectual property rights and expand the property rights.  Since that would reduce my rights (I own trademarks and I actively like branded goods like cars and drinks), I'll say "No thanks."  But my mind is open - I can accept that I may be a loser and society can be a winner if you have a better idea.  If you can show that society will be better off without intellectual property rights, of course I will agree with your concept.

EDIT: off topic but yes I do try to persuade people that abortion and euthanasia laws are a muddled mess.  Its strange that you can kill an unborn healthy child but you go to jail if you help a sick person to die.

[gibson042]

You can't simply assert that.  There is nothing to stop companies making drugs and foregoing patents right now. Feel free to point me to them - otherwise lets limit ourselves to the real world.

I can't tell whether or not you're joking. In the real world, people doing business as government threaten everyone who doesn't respect their monopoly constructs (patents and regulations).

You have put forward nothing more than an opinion that pharmaceutical development requires patents, and it is an opinion that at least one person with professional experience in the field explicitly rebuts.

[Hawker]

You can't simply assert that.  There is nothing to stop companies making drugs and foregoing patents right now. Feel free to point me to them - otherwise lets limit ourselves to the real world.

I can't tell whether or not you're joking. In the real world, people doing business as government threaten everyone who doesn't respect their monopoly constructs (patents and regulations).

You have put forward nothing more than an opinion that pharmaceutical development requires patents, and it is an opinion that at least one person with professional experience in the field explicitly rebuts.

I'm not joking.  Even the person you linked to assumed that trademarks ( the ability to sell under their own name) were needed.  Imagine a world where anyone can make a drug and call it Viagra - even if they don't copy the real Viagra, the original maker is being ripped off as the sales of that "Viagra" are actually sales that are intended for their "Viagra."

So you see, trademarks and patents are needed   But its a free market.  If anyone wants to try to develop a drug without bothering to have it patented and sell it without bothering to have a trademark, let me know how they do.

[gibson042]

I'm not joking.  Even the person you linked to assumed that trademarks ( the ability to sell under their own name) were needed.  Imagine a world where anyone can make a drug and call it Viagra - even if they don't copy the real Viagra, the original maker is being ripped off as the sales of that "Viagra" are actually sales that are intended for their "Viagra."

That's not the original maker being ripped off, that's the buyers being ripped off because they aren't getting the "real Viagra" that they thought they were. And that's true even without monopoly trademarks—it's called fraud.

So you see, trademarks and patents are needed   But its a free market.  If anyone wants to try to develop a drug without bothering to have it patented and sell it without bothering to have a trademark, let me know how they do.

"" is not sufficient for promoting an opinion to a fact. And the claim that there is a free market in drug development, when people who patent and submit to the FDA can use force against those who ignore the patents and/or the agency, is just plain false. The mafia claim that anyone is free to do business without paying protection money, too... let me know how they do.

[Hawker]

I'm not joking.  Even the person you linked to assumed that trademarks ( the ability to sell under their own name) were needed.  Imagine a world where anyone can make a drug and call it Viagra - even if they don't copy the real Viagra, the original maker is being ripped off as the sales of that "Viagra" are actually sales that are intended for their "Viagra."

That's not the original maker being ripped off, that's the buyers being ripped off because they aren't getting the "real Viagra" that they thought they were. And that's true even without monopoly trademarks—it's called fraud.

So you see, trademarks and patents are needed   But its a free market.  If anyone wants to try to develop a drug without bothering to have it patented and sell it without bothering to have a trademark, let me know how they do.

"" is not sufficient for promoting an opinion to a fact. And the claim that there is a free market in drug development, when people who patent and submit to the FDA can use force against those who ignore the patents and/or the agency, is just plain false. The mafia claim that anyone is free to do business without paying protection money, too... let me know how they do.

Your use of the word "real Viagra" says it all.  If you don't have a trademark, there is no "real" Viagra and anyone can use the name for anything.  And there is a free market in the sense that if you don't want to patent your drug research, you are not forced to.  And no-one else can patent it either.  The patent law simply means that you can't gop copy someone else's work during the patent period.  Once that ends, you can make their invention as a generic drug i.e not using their trademark but yes to using their formula.

[FredericBastiat]

I'm not joking.  Even the person you linked to assumed that trademarks ( the ability to sell under their own name) were needed.  Imagine a world where anyone can make a drug and call it Viagra - even if they don't copy the real Viagra, the original maker is being ripped off as the sales of that "Viagra" are actually sales that are intended for their "Viagra."

So you see, trademarks and patents are needed  But its a free market.  If anyone wants to try to develop a drug without bothering to have it patented and sell it without bothering to have a trademark, let me know how they do.

The original maker of Viagra has not being ripped off. The person on the other end of the sale has been defrauded of his money because the vendor who sold him the product, misrepresented its origns for something other that what was expected (specifically a pill designed and manufactured by Pfizer).

I think that dispenses with the trademark/patent neediness theory. A free market would imply persons who own objects comprised of any combination of physical characteristics, and services, trading with whomever they choose, free of restrictions.

You can't have trademarks and patents and a free market simultaneously. That's a logical impossibility. You're going to have to admit to that one. The logic says it's so.

[FredericBastiat]

To fraud or not defraud.

Contract 1: I offer a knock-off version of a Viagra pill (known to the buyer). I specify that I am the producer thereof, and that I am not representing the Pfizer corporation. Buyer beware.

Outcome 1: No fraud.

Contract 2: I offer a knock-off version of a Viagra Pill (unbeknownst to the buyer). I specify that the pill in my possession was produced by Pfizer, whose company headquarters are located in Midtown Manhattan. However, I am the producer of said knock-off Viagra pill. I deliver my pill, and not the one originating from the Pfizer company as specified by our contract. Hence, no resell/transfer from Pfizer, to me, to buyer has occurred.

Outcome 2: Fraud.

Get it? .  .  .  . I'ts called connect the dots......

[Hawker]

I'm not joking.  Even the person you linked to assumed that trademarks ( the ability to sell under their own name) were needed.  Imagine a world where anyone can make a drug and call it Viagra - even if they don't copy the real Viagra, the original maker is being ripped off as the sales of that "Viagra" are actually sales that are intended for their "Viagra."

So you see, trademarks and patents are needed  But its a free market.  If anyone wants to try to develop a drug without bothering to have it patented and sell it without bothering to have a trademark, let me know how they do.

The original maker of Viagra has not being ripped off. The person on the other end of the sale has been defrauded of his money because the vendor who sold him the product, misrepresented its origns for something other that what was expected (specifically a pill designed and manufactured by Pfizer).

I think that dispenses with the trademark/patent neediness theory. A free market would imply persons who own objects comprised of any combination of physical characteristics, and services, trading with whomever they choose, free of restrictions.

You can't have trademarks and patents and a free market simultaneously. That's a logical impossibility. You're going to have to admit to that one. The logic says it's so.

The original maker of Viagra has not being ripped off.  - of course they have.  Money that was meant for the drug they made has gone to someone else.  That is a rip off.

"A free market is a market free from state intervention. However, the term is also commonly used for markets in which economic intervention and regulation by the state is limited to tax collection, and enforcement of private ownership and contracts."  We buy and sell property, including intellectual property, freely so there is no issue.