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.'"
Monopolies in general (Score:5, Insightful)
That's common to all monopolies in general: by disallowing newcomers and competition, they serve no purpose but feeding whatever company/cartel holds that monopoly. And governments, instead of disrupting them, take more and more bribes to allow creating even more monopolies...
Not that simple unfortunately (Score:2)
Nice simple sound bite. Pity that like most sound bites it grossly oversimplifies the situation. Monopolies form for a variety of reasons, some of which are very much in the public interest. Monopolies are not something to be generally desired but it's not difficult to point out circumstances where they are the least worst option available.
Patents create a monopoly for a time in order to combat the free rider problem [wikipedia.org] which is a FAR worse problem in most cases than a temporary monopoly. There are lots of inventions that are simply not economically viable without something resembling patent protection. If you want to do away with patents and the problems with their associated monopoly, all you have to do is explain how your alternative to patents will combat the free rider problem. So far no one has come up with a lesser evil but if you can do so I believe a Nobel prize awaits you. (and no, just doing away with patents without a replacement will NOT improve things - particularly for tangible manufactured goods) Please note that I'm in no way implying our current regime of patent law is well designed or without problems. I quite firmly believe our current set of patent regulations are quite broken. I'm merely saying that patents (with their associated monopoly) as a concept are in the public interest due to the existence of the free rider problem.
In many cases you have a natural monopoly [wikipedia.org] whereby the lowest cost of production is only possible if carried out by a single firm. Public utilities tend to fall into this category. If the cost of production is not as low as possible then prices to consumers by definition cannot be as low as possible either and low prices are very much in the public interest. However because any monopoly creates potential opportunities for abuse and monopolistic pricing, such monopolies are often regulated. Again, it isn't perfect but it certainly serves a purpose beyond "feeding whatever company holds that monopoly".
Re:Monopolies in general (Score:5, Insightful)
What is google a monopoly in? At best they were at one point a near monopoly in search but that wasn't because they were a monopoly they were just literally 10x better than what else was available. Today others are catching up and are viable alternatives that are even better in some ways.
If a new company came out with a car that required no maintenance for 20+ years, ran on any fuel you could find, got the equivalent of 120 MPG and still maintained a stylish appearance and sporty performance they would become a near overnight monopoly as well.
Re: (Score:2)
They improved upon your idea, right or else how would they sell it for less?
They don't have to recoup the cost of development, as all they have to do is copy.
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Monopolies in general (Score:5, Informative)
Because they had less expenses. That doesn't necessarily mean they made the idea any less costly than it already was, unless one considers the idea of waiting for somebody else to invent something, then taking the idea and selling it themselves without having to waste the R&D time on it an acceptable means of lowering associated costs with product development.
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: (Score:2)
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.
That used to be what copyright and patents were for. Now, they are intellectual "property." Even the name belies the modern day purpose: to ensure the near perpetual private ownership of an idea of work of art.
Recouping R&D costs (Score:5, Informative)
Disclosure: I am a certified accountant with a specialty in cost accounting.
If your competitor steals your idea and then is able to copy your idea for cheaper...doesn't that mean you just lost and SHOULD go out of business?
What it means is that you need to study cost accounting. It's quite easy to demonstrate how a company that knocks off another company's product can gain a cost advantage. Research and development costs are often a very substantial portion of the cost of a good. Copying someone else's research is usually cheaper than doing it yourself. For two similar sized competent companies there is typically little difference in manufacturing or distribution costs. Holding all other things equal it is quite impossible for the company doing the R&D to sell it cheaper than a company which can simply copy someone elses work. This is called the free rider problem [wikipedia.org] and it is the entire reason why patents exist in the first place.
They improved upon your idea, right or else how would they sell it for less?
They can sell it for less because they do not have to recoup R&D costs. Please go find a cost accountant and they will explain this to you in exquisite detail. You do not have to improve on a product at all to sell it for less if you do not have to do any engineering yourself.
Re: (Score:2)
the free rider problem ... is the entire reason why patents exist in the first place
No. Patents exist to promote progress.
You characterize copying first as "free riding", which is not true, and second as a "problem", which it definitely is not. By that logic, education all the way through high school is a massive free ride, what with all those students faithfully copying down what their teachers impart to them. That baby suckling at its mother's breast? Free rider! Life on Earth is one total free ride off the energy of the sun.
Why is copying not free riding? Because free riding i
Progress by mitigating free rider problem (Score:3)
No. Patents exist to promote progress.
A distinction without a difference. Patents promote progress by mitigating the effects of the free rider problem. Patents make many investments in research and development in useful arts and sciences possible that otherwise would not be economically viable. There is absolutely no way that Intel or Pfizer or IBM would exist without some means to mitigate the free rider problem.
You characterize copying first as "free riding", which is not true, and second as a "problem", which it definitely is not.
If you are smart enough to prove that your (bogus) assertion above is correct then there is a Nobel prize in economics waiting for
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
How does a company decide which product to copy in the first place? Why not go into buggy whip manufacturing? Why not start cranking out Apple Newton clones? Why aren't there designers cranking out parachute pants?
The answer is profit. When a company can sell a product for much more than it costs to produce they can generate profits. This is how consumers direct production. Entrepreneurs come up with ideas all of the time and try to market and sell them. It is the consumers in a free market that decide whic
Too short a time window (Score:3)
It is only AFTER a product is shown to be profitable does it attract imitators. This allows for a natural limited duration monopoly in which to recoup R&D costs.
Problem is that the time period you are talking about is FAR too short to recoup R&D costs. I've got 20 years experience in manufacturing and I assure you that the time period you propose is actually incredibly short. My company makes wire harnesses. We're a contract manufacturer. If you handed me almost any example of any wire harness, I could probably have a working prototype copy in your hands within a week. A month at the outside if it is really, really complicated. And we're a small shop with
Re: (Score:2)
That defies economic logic. If your competitor steals your idea and then is able to copy your idea for cheaper...doesn't that mean you just lost and SHOULD go out of business? They improved upon your idea, right or else how would they sell it for less? Or it means you were charging too much in the first place? And if your competitor steals your idea and then sells it so cheap they don't profit...well then they go out of business. I really fail to see how the basic laws of economics are not at play here.
The problem is you competitor didn't invest funds for the R&D to come up with the product. When you make the product you have to charge extra to recoup those funds while your competitor does not have those costs, it's why generic drugs are so much cheaper then name brand, there are no R&D costs. They can make the product the same way as you do and charge less.
Re: (Score:2)
Holy crap who modded this up? It's called research and development, and it's actually quite costly.
And just what in God's name does the NSA have to do with this discussion?
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: (Score:2, Informative)
This is one of the rare cases where I have to side with the patent holders (despite how uncomfortable it is). Myriad Genetics did *not* patent a gene, they patented a propensity for disease test, that featured a specific gene at the center of the test.
What did getting a patent do for them? It allowed them (or their licensees) to be the only ones legally allowed to perform propensity for disease tests as a service, using that gene. What else did it do? It allowed them to be open about their research, so t
Re:Article doesn't understand the point of patents (Score:5, Informative)
The vast majority of the basic research into disesases is done in univesity labs, funded by government grants. Only when the results hint at commercial viability do businesses (often the reasearchers by leaving the university) then take over and commercialize the work. I am not saying that there is not a lot of effort still left to do, but in many cases the patents are mostly comming out of the early work, and are then blocking people from doing the commercialization work.
While the drug companies might spend a lot of money to do the final commercialization work, the vast majority of the development cost (lots and lots of dead ends) is born by the government. I am not arguing that that is not how it should be (that is how science gets done), but rather saying that it is silly to think that without patent protections that new things would not be discoverd.
The case at hand the company was trying to use teh cour system to prevent anyone from creating tests that looked for naturally occuring genes. They were not just blocking people from using the test method they developed, but from using any conceviable method of teting for those specific genes.
Re:Article doesn't understand the point of patents (Score:4, Insightful)
I am not saying that there is not a lot of effort still left to do
Myriad spent about $500 million on the "effort still left to do" by the way.
Pharmaceuticals are even more expensive because of the massive cost of FDA testing.
You are correct - university labs tend to create the basic knowledge, but without that intellectual property right existing to be licensed, Pharma companies would not invest in the testing and manufacture of the drug.
Much of what Myriad owned in IP on BRCA testing came from the owner's lab at the University of Utah, with research money coming from Eli Lilly.
No patents allowed for things found in nature (Score:5, Informative)
Myriad Genetics did *not* patent a gene, they patented a propensity for disease test, that featured a specific gene at the center of the test.
If what you say is true then why did the recent Supreme Court ruling invalidate [wikipedia.org] Myriad's patents on the BRCA1 and BRCA2? Myriad was apparently granted patents on naturally occurring genes they had managed to isolate and they used these patents to prevent anyone else from testing for the presence of these genes. The Supreme Court ruled unanimously against Myriad on this topic. This does not prevent Myriad from developing some novel test technology, it simply means they can't patent something that is just found in nature the same way they cannot dig up a pile of some mineral and get a patent for what they found.
How many other diseases will go unstudied, now that there is no reward for linking a gene to a disease?
There is plenty of reward for coming up with a therapy, coming up with novel testing equipment, etc. There is no public interest to be found in allowing patents for things simply found in nature.
Re: (Score:2)
The problem is, effectively they patented fundamental knowledge. Everyone in the industry knew those particular genes conveyed risk of cancer. There were several different ways to test for the presence of those genes. The patent holder MIGHT have reasonably been granted a patent on a particular way to test for those genes if it was novel, but their patent claimed that any detection at all was covered in their patent. It's like patenting "fire is hot".
None will go unstudied now. Most of that research is done
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
I am fairly sure that it is you that doesn't understand the issue. The patent was for knowledge that many others would have discovered in short order anyway - because they patented a section of the actual human genome. They were perhaps that first to discover its relationship to a type of cancer, or perhaps they were only the first to hit upon the idea to try and patent the human genome. The underlying technology - the test they developed - is fully patentable. But not the human genome itself.
The patent
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: (Score:2)
"there is something sociopathic about one's business model being to make money on the suffering of others"
This is ridiculous. They aren't making money by MAKING people suffer; they are making money by STOPPING human suffering. They profit by IMPROVING human life. Hell, this is the entire idea behind things like patents and copyrights: create something that may improve the world and you get a time limited monopoly to benefit from it.
There's certainly a great amount of room for debate on how long that time
Re: (Score:2)
Whooosh
Re: (Score:2)
Sorry if that went over your head. I'll endeavor to simplify future posts for your edification.
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.
US of Awesome v the Corruptwealth of Austrafalia (Score:5, Informative)
Gene patenting: Australian court rules BRCA1 patent is legal http://theconversation.com/gene-patenting-australian-court-rules-brca1-patent-is-legal-12240 [theconversation.com]
This is nothing new. When asked to rule if Australians had free speech the Australian courts wouldn't even grant them that: http://www.findlaw.com.au/articles/4529/do-we-have-the-right-to-freedom-of-speech-in-austr.aspx [findlaw.com.au] http://www.sbs.com.au/news/article/1741850/QA-What-are-the-limits-to-free-speech [sbs.com.au] http://www.ask.com/question/what-countries-don-t-have-freedom-of-speech [ask.com]
Well, nice to see America putting Australia to shame: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Implications_of_US_gene_patent_invalidation_on_Australia [wikipedia.org]
ALL property ownership reinforces inequality (Score:2, Insightful)
I'm not a fan of patents but Mr. Stiglitz's central argument is silly unless this is a pitch to Marxists or whatever-Richard-Stallman-is types. Landlords can hold arbitrary amounts of property and charge rent on all of them... isn't that an accepted part of our society?
Re: (Score:2)
Followed shortly thereafter by doing studies why there is a shortage of apartments in their city.
I don't think most people care (Score:5, Insightful)
I've tried making that argument, but most people won't really care until it becomes a talking point beaten to death by demagogues on TV. Also, I cringed a bit when I read that summary, because every phrase screams "leftist academic". That's one of the quickest and easiest ways to get dismissed by moderates and center-right allies.
News channels' parents benefit from copyright (Score:3)
most people won't really care until it becomes a talking point beaten to death by demagogues on TV.
And the movie studios, which own the channels where these demagogues appear [pineight.com], have been doing their best to keep this from becoming a talking point because they benefit from expansion of copyright.
So what? (Score:2)
As others have said, all property rights exist to protect and promote inequality.
And what's the problem with that? Inequality is pretty much the defining characteristic of life. Evolution works because something got more than something else.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Your logical mistake is equalling a "characteristics of life", inequality, with evolution.
Just because A has C and B has C, does not mean that A is B.
The problem is logical failure.
Now, if someone is truly better than someone else, clearly they "deserve" a bit more. However, nobody "deserves" to treat other human beings as slaves, or getting rich from their diseases when it can be cured by a simple cure. Modern soceity is built on the foundation of "equality", that all people are "equal".
It's a logical mist
Re: (Score:2)
Actually "intellectual" property rights exist to encourage new ideas. At least that's what they were supposed to be...
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;
Re: (Score:2)
Actually "intellectual" property rights exist to encourage new ideas. At least that's what they were supposed to be...
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;
Um, no shit. And by securing for a limited time, you're promoting inequality for that time.
You know, exactly like I said.
How [all] property reinforces inequality (Score:3)
This is a feature of all private property protections. We don't mind having private property because the goal of our society is promoting general welfare, not promoting equality. Sometimes these two goals are compatible, and sometimes they are not.
But how does rent-seeking increase welfare? (Score:2)
the goal of our society is promoting general welfare
In what way does increasing opportunities for rent-seeking increase welfare?
overblown (Score:4, Insightful)
The real issue here is stupid patents. People patenting round corners and touch to open and the wheel or whatever other stupidity the patent office lets pass by. Those pretty much result in extortion to other companies. But then you've got Dungeons and Dragons. The company invents something that cost a fortune to develop with staff time, spell checking, math, balancing, etc. Someone shouldn't be able to rip it off freely and resell it or give it away just because it's intellectual property and not "real" property. Some copyrights and patents reflect actual value and some are made up BS to go around suing people over. THAT is what needs to be fixed. Depriving the poor masses of their right to D&D information by lording it over them with patents and copyrights is a completely made up fantasy though (pun intended).
Re: (Score:3)
The real issue here is stupid patents. People patenting round corners and touch to open and the wheel or whatever other stupidity the patent office lets pass by.
The real issue is stupid journalism that leads people to believe that the patent office is letting patents through on "round corners" and "touch to open" and "the wheel".
Duh! (Score:2)
That's the whole idea.
Re: (Score:2)
That's the whole idea.
Fixed that for the original author but your comment still holds.
Personally, I kind of like the idea that what I've busted my butt working to get is mine and can't be taken away to give to some snivelling, lazy-assed bastard who thinks he or she is entitled to what I've worked for but are too lazy to work for it themselves.
Cheers,
Dave
Re: (Score:2)
That's fine, but "intellectual property" has nothing to do with that.
Oddly enough... (Score:4, Insightful)
premise is correct (Score:5, Insightful)
The problem with IP today is the complete lack of reasonable limits on who can make money from IP and for how long.
It's is fundamentally unfair to the world to expect unlimited and life-long (or longer) income from your IP (or even worse, from someone else's IP to which you have acquired the 'rights').
IP is a human mental construct that was brought into being to address fairness. The pendulum has swung way too far.
confiscation? (Score:2, Insightful)
So if society is going to confiscate intellectual property for the good of the whole.. is it going to compensate those who spent millions iventing it. or subsidize those who in process? As hard as it may be for some of you to beleive.. these people and companies invested A LOT of time and money into these products.
Here's an idea: Crowdfunded confiscation (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Bad Comaprison (Score:2)
Land, as a limited resource, can indeed run into a lock-in problem. When a small number of land owners have a lock on the majority of the usable property they can collect rent and essentially prevent people from building their own resources without actually contributing anything. This was a serious problem when it came to say farm land since once land owners grab up the land, actual farmers have
Fewer than 106 million songs (Score:3)
I like inequality (Score:3, Insightful)
Am I the only one who likes inequality? Not to the extend that it exists today, but it's pretty much the only thing that makes most folks to get out of bed in the morning: the hope that they'll be better off than those that skip the "getting out of bed and going to work" part. That's why inventors invent, researchers research, directors direct, actors act, writers write, software engineers code, and folks at Boeing make airplanes and space ships. What would be their motivation if no matter what they did, they'd still be "equal" to someone who sits on his ass all day and does nothing? There are not one but several large scale examples that equality does not work. Russia, pre-capitalism China just the two largest ones. And not working was a crime in those countries, punishable by jail time.
Why must everything be the lowest common denominator?
Story Misstates SCOTUS Decision (Score:2)
the court ruled, unanimously, that human genes cannot be patented, though synthetic DNA, created in the laboratory, can be.
If only that were true! Read the SCOTUS decision, already.
Medical IP (Score:2)
Stiglitz does not point out that Myriad spent $500 million developing its BRCA tests. Without assurances of a limited period of patent protection, who would have made this investment?
What else did Myriad do? Myriad entered into a Memorandum of Understanding with the National Cancer Institute (NCI) to provide at cost or below cost testing to the NCI and any researcher working under a NCI funded project. Myriad created a network of health care professionals, service providers and insurers, and hired a larg
Intellectual property has been deprecated (Score:2)
Looking at the problem wrong (Score:3)
The issue isn't the concept of Intellectual Property. The problem is how IP rights are doled out, and the breadth of patents issued.
The fact that patenting a genome was even ever up for debate is systemic of the patent office in general not knowing what the fuck they're doing. You should be able to patent the method by which a genome is altered, sure. You could even claim that a sequence that you created from scratch in a lab is your IP (assuming that sequence doesn't occur naturally) But the original proposition was beyond asinine. It would be like inventing a camera, taking a picture of someone, and then claiming that person's face is now your IP. And this concept gained traction. WTF. That they weren't immediately laughed out of the office is just another symptom of the root cause.
Likewise, Google has IP rights over their search process, and the algorithms used in searches ... but they certainly have no dominion over the concept of "web searching." Movie studios have IP rights over their specific movies, and characters contained therein... but Marvel doesn't have rights over the concept of Super Hero movies. These examples are obvious and clear. But as soon as we start talking about something even a little bit abstract, like "genomes," everyone drops the common sense.
I'm not familiar enough to know the root cause, but my SWAG* is simply age and indifference. Those in charge of the Patent Office are old farts who can't be bothered to learn these newfangeled thingy-ma-whats-its. A more cynical view would be that those in charge know exactly what they're doing, and have been well paid to keep doing it... but I'll side with Hanlon's Razor on this one.
*that would be this SWAG. [wikipedia.org] Not whatever newfangled definition you kids are using today.
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?
Re: (Score:3)
How short-sighted can someone be? If a landlord couldn't collect rent, they wouldn't provide an apartment for a renter to live in. Innovation doesn't "just happen". It happens because people expect to profit from their investment of time and effort.
So what if you have to pay a royalty? If it's too much, you don't have to take advantage of the innovation. At least you have a choice, which you wouldn't otherwise.
Moreover, the newest innovation means the older stuff becomes cheaper. An old iPhone may have been too expensive for you in the past, but you can pick one up for nearly free now. And the same thing will happen to current products when the next generation comes out. This isn't just true of phones, but lots of other things like cars, medicine, computers, etc.
yeah I suppose your angle would fly if I was paying rent to someone who owned this piece of land back in 1917.. and not the current owner of this physical property(which I am doing!). do you send monthly checks to the guy who drew your apartment or did you buy it from the previous owner?
the thing with intellectual property licensing about technical solutions is that.. surprise surprise I no longer have choice to figure out how to do thing XYZ instead of buying someones solution.
and in regards of something l
Re: (Score:2)
yeah I suppose your angle would fly if I was paying rent to someone who owned this piece of land back in 1917.. and not the current owner of this physical property(which I am doing!). do you send monthly checks to the guy who drew your apartment or did you buy it from the previous owner?
Are you saying you can't buy IP and then "rent" it to someone else? Also do you know that patent protection expires?
Not taking advantage is not an option (Score:2)
So what if you have to pay a royalty? If it's too much, you don't have to take advantage of the innovation.
The law requires individuals to buy particular services in order not to be sent to prison. The law further requires those who provide these services to provide a level of service or safety or both that happens to require the use of a patented process or material. This is true of at least health care, housing, and transport.
An old iPhone may have been too expensive for you in the past, but you can pick one up for nearly free now.
Free? Owning an iPhone still costs $99 per year payable to Apple, plus cellular charges.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Easy answer (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
Did you even read the article? There's nothing "commie" about it.
"Inequality" in itself isn't good or bad. Otherwise, please allow me to abscond with your savings and reduce you to pauperdom...I'll be doing you a favor, right?
Some inequality is good. When you expand the sum total of wealth available to humanity, and benefit from that, it's good. Inequality that is based upon rent-seeking is bad. As when someone patents an existing gene located in the human body and tries to charge you fees to access yo
Re: (Score:3)
We are fairly sure now that inequality really is bad, even just relative inequality in a world where everyone's basic needs are met. This is a scientific question about human well-being, and it's answerable in principle if not in practice. Just existing in an unequal society puts mental stress on human beings which correlates to significant negative health outcomes both physically and mentally. If you could instantly inflate the US economy ten fold, but following the same trend of inequality growth, you'd a
Re: (Score:2)
We must be progressing faster than ever.
Re: (Score:2)
Since when /. became the platform for commie propaganda?
Around the time you stopped beating your wife, maybe?
Inequality is good [...]
Good for who, you? Inequality has another aspect, which you probably wouldn't find as agreeable.
[Inequality] is what drives progress.
I suppose that may be partially true in some regards — for example, inequality helped drive the enactment of the Civil Rights Act and the Thirteenth Amendment.
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: (Score:3)
300? I think you are stretching definition of "property" to meet your ideology.
Re: (Score:2)
EVERYTHING is a privilege to be enjoyed in proportion to wealth. You're kidding yourself if you think it can ever be any other way.
Re:Commies occypied /. ? (Score:5, Insightful)
yes, the 'life is a race' concept. I heard of that. Nice concept. if everybody started at the same point (and not: some near the finish pole and others without legs outside the stadium)
Re:Commies occypied /. ? (Score:4, Insightful)
yes, the 'life is a race' concept. I heard of that. Nice concept. if everybody started at the same point (and not: some near the finish pole and others without legs outside the stadium)
That's the second part: "Life isn't fair".
Re:Commies occypied /. ? (Score:4, Insightful)
Life isn't fair
but society should be.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
So, what's your point?
If I start with nothing, work hard, and generate superior r results I get nothing?
If I raise a superior child, though time, dedication, and, yes, spending some extra dough, do they get nothing?
I think the key is the “OP” is a “little inequity”. Life is not always fair but it should be fairish. Hard work and bright ideas would be motivated with rewards, which will result in inequity. As for a “lot of inequity” - we should not live in a winner takes al
Re:Commies occypied /. ? (Score:5, Insightful)
As for a “lot of inequity” - we should not live in a winner takes all, class bound gilded society – that takes away the incentive for hard work.
The paradox of extremes. In a communistic society, there's no reason to work hard because your can get the same rewards without exertion. In what we simplistically call a "capitalistic" society there's no reason to work hard because the people who got there first will deny you the benefits anyway.
I use quotes around "capitalistic" because the term is routinely expanded to include aspects of business and philosophy that have nothing to do with how you raise and use capital.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
The paradox of extremes. In a communistic society, there's no reason to work hard because your can get the same rewards without exertion. In what we simplistically call a "capitalistic" society there's no reason to work hard because the people who got there first will deny you the benefits anyway.
I'll call BS on your simplistic view of capitalism. In my 54 years, I've met very few people that worked hard and were unsuccessful. There have been exceptions, and usually it was because they had made poor choices in the areas they worked. Working hard and smart is key, and stop blaming society if you have a rough time for a while. Shit happens to everyone, losers whine, winners work harder.
Re:Commies occypied /. ? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Commies occypied /. ? (Score:5, Insightful)
If I start with nothing, work hard, and generate superior r results I get nothing?
the part where hard work generates results is nice. in reality though, luck is much more important than all other factors.
Re: (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.)
Lysistrata (Score:3)
Sure, but I am not sure how much IP work they are doing.
First, I will point out that even in Africa’s 200 million poverty bound woman, those woman who produce superior results get ahead economically. Sadly, African culture tends to discount heavily the value of woman and “woman’s work”.
Second, I would point out that a Free Market is not a magical wand. In order for it to work you need the right social institutions, like equal access to the court system to enforce contracts (and to pr
Re: (Score:3)
If I start with nothing, work hard, and generate superior r results I get nothing?
No, you should get something. Specifically, you should get a reward commensurate to the superiority of your results, rather than with a factor of 0.1x for the low end of the scale, and 1000x for the high end.
The funny thing is that when they went around and asked people [hbs.edu] what they think the distribution of wealth in the country is like, turned out that most (even liberals, much less conservatives) have a picture that's far more rosy than what the reality is. Funnier still, when those same people were asked t
Re:Standing on the shoulders of giants (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
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.
Re: (Score:3)
Then allow patents only on telecommunications (Score:2)
telecommunications is responsible for the explosions of innovation
Then what's responsible for the invention of telecommunications itself? Perhaps only telecom patents should be allowed to go through.
Countries without patents and copyright did just fine compared to otherwise similar nations.
Because they were able to mooch off inventions and works produced in other countries.
Re: (Score:3)
One of the more interesting theories was the switch from beer to coffee.
Yes, but they also produced as much or more new inventions and works as the countries with patents and copyright.
Re: (Score:3)
Newton wrote, "If I have seen further it is by standing on the shoulders of giants."
Of course, the "shoulders of giants" thing was meant as a crack at Leibniz, who wasn't very tall.
Re:Commies occypied /. ? (Score:5, Insightful)
Ah, but all people should be equally valued in the eyes of the law. That's the point. Laws should not favor the rich over the poor, or one ethnicity over another. While one person may be born into wealth, and their possession of it, therefore a given, another person born into poverty should not be barred from obtaining wealth through hard work and careful planning. When laws exist that effectively preclude the poor from gaining wealth, we now have inequality in the law, and that is what the article describes.
Re: (Score:2)
> When laws exist that effectively preclude the poor from gaining wealth, we now have inequality in the law, and that is what the article describes.
Much of law defines the property and the rights of property owners. All of this prevents the poor from gaining wealth, and is inequitable in that the poor don't benefit from it. However personal property is also regarded as one of the Inalienable Rights bestowed on man by the Creator by the Founders of this nation.
IP law is just one facet of this. The idea th
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Commies occypied /. ? (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
The more I learn about the place the less I like it. It's amazing that it's acquired a reputation as a progressive/liberal business environment, it's actually the most ruthlessly Randian business environment in the US. Silicon Valley libertarians have absolutely no qualms about producing products that make the world worse in any way possible (social networking, drones, "mechanical turk" clones and other race-to-the-bottom accelerators, mass surveillance for marketing purposes...literally anything), with the
Disassembling proprietary software (Score:2)
Forget getting any new software.
You underestimate how much free software is distributed to the public under permissive licenses.
Forget keeping GNU licensed software free...
If copyright in computer programs were to disappear, it would become lawful to make a copy of a proprietary derivative of a free program, disassemble it, comment it thoroughly, and spread the disassembly to the public. I've read that this would please RMS just as much as copyleft licensing.
Disassemble it and document the additions (Score:2)
If copyright's suddenly disappeared. Copyleft software could be co-opted by *anyone* who could leverage the software, put their own unique spin on it, then sell the results for anything they could get. They could keep their additions to the software secret.
And anyone could buy a copy, disassemble it, document the additions, and spread the result.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I think this makes sense, but I think you have to do it in a way that protects inventors who aren't product manufacturers or even full-scale businesses. This is probably a problem only in unusual cases.
But generally speaking, I think that patents that go unused (save, within 5 years of patent issuance) should be voided and considered part of the public realm.
It seems counter to the purpose of a patent to use it only as a legal cudgel and not as a practical tool for actually protecting a business producing
Re: (Score:2)
More and more; robots and computers. There's already a glut of completely unskilled labor in the West. Unless you're leveraging relative strength of the dollar with your home currency there's no incentive to work a minimum wage job in the USA. That's why illegal immigrants are willing to work for below minimum wage here. When they send their money back home it's still more than they would be able to make otherwise.
We have another 20-30 years before we have to really face the facts: it's not possible for a p