How Intellectual Property Reinforces Inequality 272
An anonymous reader writes "Here is an article by Dr.Joe Stiglitz on how intellectual property reinforces inequality by allowing patent owners to seek rent (aka license / sue) instead of delivering goods to the society. From the article: 'At first glance, the case, Association for Molecular Pathology v. Myriad Genetics, might seem like scientific arcana: the court ruled, unanimously, that human genes cannot be patented, though synthetic DNA, created in the laboratory, can be. But the real stakes were much higher, and the issues much more fundamental, than is commonly understood. The case was a battle between those who would privatize good health, making it a privilege to be enjoyed in proportion to wealth, and those who see it as a right for all — and a central component of a fair society and well-functioning economy. Even more deeply, it was about the way inequality is shaping our politics, legal institutions and the health of our population.'"
Article doesn't understand the point of patents (Score:5, Interesting)
The article author seems to assume that patented technology just falls from the sky and comes for free to the lucky patent holder who then exploits the rest of the world, when they say;
"But the patents had devastating real-world implications, because they kept the prices for the diagnostics artificially high."
they are arguing from false premises. Now in this case I happen to agree with not allowing patents on unmodified genes however it is still the case that the prices are only artificially high if the diagnostics would have existed had it not been possible to acquire patents on them in the first place,
According to the article it would have been ok if they had gotten the patents if they were motivated to save lives rather than make money. This is not an article which rationally discussed the problems of the patent system, and those problems are legion, it is an article that says if you try and make money you are bad. Not really very interesting.
Re:Commies occypied /. ? (Score:5, Interesting)
Since when /. became the platform for commie propaganda?
Inequality is good, it is what drives progress.
paying rent for imaginary things doesn't drive progress all that much - if you count progress as progress in the physical world, what if all combine harvesters cost 100x as they do today because someone had managed to extend patents to be 200 years?
Much More Complicated Than That (Score:5, Interesting)
... it is an article that says if you try and make money you are bad...
The author I'm sure very well understands patents. I think your statement over-simplifies his argument though.
One of the conversations we as a society need to be having right now is regarding HOW people make money. Is it bad to try to make money? Absolutely not. Everyone needs to be able to at a minimum cover basic life needs, and those that work harder should definitely be able to reap what they sow and have extra goodies and a good retirement. I think that's fair.
The question is, are people making money by exploiting people? Are they knowingly taking advantage of people's ignorance, or taking advantage of laws and systems, to maintain their upper hand and avoid competing against others that very well might have better ideas and more drive, but cannot get a foothold to even start a business? Worst of all, are people suffering when they do not have to, if such a business model was not in the way of a better system? Patents make sure that anyone with a better idea (perhaps someone could come up with a way to make healthcare more affordable while still making money??) is not able to actually compete. What about the right of the entrepreneur to establish a new business? Why is everything always framed in the established businesses, rather than the people prevented from creating businesses (and jobs)?
IMHO, there is something sociopathic about one's business model being to make money on the suffering of others (particularly things like medical issues, which are often through no fault of one's own -- cannot choose your DNA, etc.). Simply saying "Well someone has to pay for it, and they have a right to make money" doesn't really correct the fact that someone is still capitalizing on someone's illness. Perhaps this is a place where the government makes a lot of sense -- perhaps most medical research should be publicly funded and available to all. Get the idea of "I have to make money off of this cancer patient!" out of the system entirely. (Really, I think education and health care should be rights (or "perks", if you prefer) of any citizen; the function being to give everyone a similar base when they start out in the world. After that, it is up to you what you want to make of yourself, but at least everyone is given a fair chance.). This isn't saying patents in general are a bad idea, but simply questioning whether patents on human health are a good idea..
I can't say I know the answer, but I think pretending any attempt at conversation is an assault on business's rights to make money is disingenuous, and I'm really getting sick of "...but business!" being the response to everything. How about we agree that if current business models are not working, we try to allow new ones to take over?
Re:Monopolies in general (Score:5, Interesting)
That is why intellectual property should last long enough for recoup development costs plus enough incentive to encourage the creation of new inventions/ideas. That was the whole point of copyright in the first place.
To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;
Intellectual property rights are only put in place to encourage the creation of new creations, not to form an exclusive monopoly for the life of a corporation which in fact discourages and prevents the progress of science and useful arts.
Re:Much More Complicated Than That (Score:5, Interesting)
I think pretending any attempt at conversation is an assault on business's rights to make money is disingenuous
But then you say,
IMHO, there is something sociopathic about one's business model being to make money on the suffering of others
You could argue calling someone sociopathic isn't an assault, but I'd say you were being disingenuous.
I work for a biomedical company. We make money on the suffering of others. We make money because other people are sick. We didn't cause that sickness, and I'm sure most of us would happily find other work if the diseases we treat didn't exist, and we'd love to be in the business of selling cures rather than treatments, but it is what it is.
If the business aspect and the profits and the patents were removed and access to our products was a right, our treatments would not be any cheaper. In fact they'd be infinitely more expensive, because they'd likely not exist.
These ideas--that intellectual property and patents are wrong and represent some social injustice--aren't just wrong, they're dangerous. First, these swords cut both ways. I am a strong believer in government funding for basic research. The same IP laws the private sector uses to build businesses and make profit are also necessary for We The People to get credit for the discoveries and inventions we pay for.
Second, as a practical matter, history tells us this system (in a larger sense) works. Look at the industrial revolution. Why were some areas rich with invention and progress and others not? The necessary factors included access to raw materials such as iron ore and energy sources such as coal, but another large factor was a strong IP system. In cultures where innovation is rewarded with profit, we see more innovation.
The patent system specifically as it exists today certainly has many issues. But what we have is still better than no patent system at all.
Patents make sure that anyone with a better idea (perhaps someone could come up with a way to make healthcare more affordable while still making money??) is not able to actually compete. What about the right of the entrepreneur to establish a new business? Why is everything always framed in the established businesses, rather than the people prevented from creating businesses (and jobs)?
I think you have that backwards. Large corporations certainly have twisted the patent system to serve the status quo and reduce the rewards of independent innovation, but that's a political problem. We can cover that in a discussion of lobbyists and role of private money in politics.
Let's say the patent system was weakened or removed entirely. Does that make it more likely the entrepreneur can establish a new business model? Does that make it easier for the new-comer? Easier to complete with the established company that already has the brand recognition, already has the manufacturing capabilities, already has the distribution network, already has the agreements for shelf space with retailers?
The solution for protecting the independent entrepreneur from established businesses is a stronger patent system, not a weaker one.
I think patents should be for non-obvious, working implementations of novel ideas--inventions, not discoveries. Something that already exists by definition fails the "novel" test. This includes human DNA. Invent a new way to manipulate DNA to diagnose genetic issues? That might be worthy of a patent. Discover something in gene X causes disease Y? No patent.
How about we agree that if current business models are not working, we try to allow new ones to take over?
You want better, more affordable, more accessible health case? Forget patents. Even if I grant your assessment of the patent system, you have a loooooong list of issues to address that are having bigger impacts on health case costs. Start with insurance companies and the way prices for health services are determined.
But that covers issues with existing treatments and services. You want better health care through innovation? Then you should embrace the patent system. It can be better and should be stronger.
Re:Commies occypied /. ? (Score:5, Interesting)
If inequality is the engine of progress, then you should live under Hitler or Pol Pot, with equanimity.
You will find, on only casual study, that excessive patent term extension kills progress, innovation and discovery - leading only to extractive rent-taking.
In the current, modern economy, wealth is created through POLICY. Not through innate virtue, or luck of evolutionary/social chances.
"Intellectual Property" was not even a term in the language 25 years ago. Extension - into near perpetuity - of copyright and patent protections is a perversion of policy to grant "intellectual" fiefdom.
All this article advocates is the removal of artificially created policy constraints, that grant near-feudal extraction concessions to those already privileged and benefiting.
Re:Commies occypied /. ? (Score:3, Interesting)
Sigh. The death of hope. So sad.
Fortunately empirical studies show this is not true. (Class mobility looks to be declining but skill still seems to dominate.)
Re:Standing on the shoulders of giants (Score:4, Interesting)
Amazingly confused.
Your first paragraph directlt contradicts your second.
Newton stood on the shoulders of giants because he didn't have to pay some mob of rent-seekers for the priviledge.
He also didn't publish his calculus, and kept them as his personal trade secret, until Halley approached him about the shape of the orbit of comets.
Similarly, Richard Feynman didn't reveal that he was using Clifford Algebras to solve systems of Feynman-Dyson diagrams; it made him look like he was skipping intermediate steps and leaving them as "an exercise for the student", and made him look vastly more intelligent than hist students.
Both men kept their methods secret to have an advantage. A patent is a trade for disclosing these trade secrets in exchange for a time limited monopoly - so the original author is being disingenuous with their perpetual rent argument.