Slashdot Mirror

The point he made is that you could, if you want to live in Somalia, for example, which is apparently a libertarian paradise.

1. Is Somalia A Libertarian Paradise?
2. Solamia "was an experiment in anarchy, not libertarianism. Libertarianism is dependant on a small government providing for the protection of rights and enforcement of contracts."
3. "Somalia as libertarian paradise? "That response would, of course, be the one John Locke offered four centuries ago:"

   liberty is to be free from restraint and violence from others, which cannot be where there is no law; and is not, as we are told, “a liberty for every man to do what he lists.” For who could be free, when every other man’s humour might domineer over him? But a liberty to dispose and order freely as he lists his person, actions, possessions, and his whole property within the allowance of those laws under which he is, and therein not to be subject to the arbitrary will of another, but freely follow his own.

Selective cognition is selective.

It most certainly is.

Falcon

Only if the public option allows that:
http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/full/354/16/1661
http://www.quebecoislibre.org/04/040915-7.htm

http://www.quebecoislibre.org/04/040915-7.htm

OK, so that wasn't really fair. :-)

Here's the executive summary: http://www.quebecoislibre.org/000902-3.htm

Some more references:
http://wiki.ffii.org/Martin041109En
http://www.mises.org/journals/jls/15_2/15_2_1.pdf
http://www.iht.com/articles/2006/05/21/business/wh o.php
http://www.guardian.co.uk/globalisation/story/0,73 69,665969,00.html
http://www.dklevine.com/general/intellectual/again st.htm
http://www.thenation.com/doc/20020805/newman200207 25
http://www.economist.com/printedition/displaystory .cfm?story_id=5014990

"Within the past five or six years, economists in particular have started to question the USPTO's practices, finding little correlation, if any, between patent proliferation and invention. Economists have identified many situations in which patents actually retard the introduction of new products. "
http://members.forbes.com/asap/2002/0624/044.html

Actually, the authors of many empirical studies point out that patents do not play anything like a dominant role among the various mechanisms by which returns from innovation are captured. Indeed, for most firms trade secrets, know-how, lead time to markets, continuing technological innovation, licensing, name recognition, service capabilities and the use of complementary marketing and manufacturing capabilities are often deemed more effective than patent protection. In the end, in virtually all branches of industry, the absence of patent protection would have had little or no impact on the innovative efforts of a majority of firms (Mazzoleni and Nelson, 1998; Cohen et al., 2000).

sure that they would be able to recover thoses costs by haveing the right to control how and by whom it is produced
This is a fallacy. Revenue is not magically generated by having control over production, nor is control over production a guarantee of profit.

Explain to me how even the current patent system hurts the inventor.

In many ways, but mainly because the patent system has become a game for the Big Guys who can afford the law suits or defend themselves by using their own patents. Small inventors with one or two patents don't stand a chance. This article is but one example of this scenario. The way the multi-nationals use cross-licensing as a legal way of creating cartels is also pretty sickening (I recommend the excellent book Information Feudalism by Peter Drahos and John Braithwaite for more on that).

For a more general discussion around the patent system and some of it's problems, I direct you to a few references on the topic:

http://wiki.ffii.org/Martin041109En
http://www.quebecoislibre.org/000902-3.htm
http://www.guardian.co.uk/globalisation/story/0,73 69,665969,00.html
http://www.thenation.com/doc/20020805/newman200207 25
http://www.iht.com/articles/2006/05/21/business/wh o.php
http://www.dklevine.com/general/intellectual/again st.htm
http://www.cepr.net/publications/intellectual_prop erty_2004_09.htm

So why stop with one step? Take two. Read up on Big Pharma's annual reports and pay close attention to the R&D costs column. Most of them have a number there corresponding to around 15% of their total costs. Now check how much R&D is paid for by the federal government and how much of Big Pharma's sales is paid for by federal money (ie your tax money).

Here, I'll help you get started:

The basic numbers are very striking. If drug prices in the United States were to fall by 70 percent in the absence of patent protection, it would amount to savings of more than $140 billion a year, given 2005 spending levels. This is almost six times as much as the industry claims it is currently spending on research. Since half of this money may go to research copycat drugs of little social value, the savings from eliminating drug patents in the United States may be more than 10 times as large as the spending necessary to replace the useful research performed by the pharmaceutical industry.
Dean Baker

because they are guaranteed to not make a return on their investment.

You keep repeating that, as if repeating it makes it true. It does not. Again, check the facts and the numbers. That patents could in some magical way provide inventors with a income guarantee is a myth, not to mention that the proposition that patents somehow could be the only way to reap profits from an invention is a complete and total fabrication. It simply is not true. Patents are one of the most ineffective wealth distributors ever created, unless you're a patent lawyer or a patent troll. Please, don't be a troll.

Actually, the authors of many empirical studies point out that patents do not play anything like a dominant role among the various mechanisms by which returns from innovation are captured. Indeed, for most firms trade secrets, know-how, lead time to markets, continuing technological innovation, licensing, name recognition, service capabilities and the use of complementary marketing and manufacturing capabilities are often deemed more effective than patent protection. In the end, in virtually all branches of industry, the absence of patent protection would have had little or no impact on the innovative efforts of a majority of firms (Mazzoleni and Nelson, 1998; Cohen et al., 2000).
Pierre Desrochers

Meanwhile, in the real world, IBM's patents LOST to Compaq's copying, which spurred the computer revolution as we know it. If IBM had been successful in "protecting their IP", you would probably be sitting at a 486 right now. Running OS/2.

Patents do not drive profits. Innovation does. Innovation does not depend on patents, they depend on being first-to-market. Patents slow down that process. These processes are in fact very well studied. R&D does NOT substantially rely on patent protection.

Actually, the authors of many empirical studies point out that patents do not play anything like a dominant role among the various mechanisms by which returns from innovation are captured. Indeed, for most firms trade secrets, know-how, lead time to markets, continuing technological innovation, licensing, name recognition, service capabilities and the use of complementary marketing and manufacturing capabilities are often deemed more effective than patent protection. In the end, in virtually all branches of industry, the absence of patent protection would have had little or no impact on the innovative efforts of a majority of firms (Mazzoleni and Nelson, 1998; Cohen et al., 2000).
Pierre Desrochers, Johns Hopkins University

Because patents DO NOT guarantee him a profit in any way, shape or form. To imply otherwise is just perpetuating a myth.

Actually, the authors of many empirical studies point out that patents do not play anything like a dominant role among the various mechanisms by which returns from innovation are captured. Indeed, for most firms trade secrets, know-how, lead time to markets, continuing technological innovation, licensing, name recognition, service capabilities and the use of complementary marketing and manufacturing capabilities are often deemed more effective than patent protection. In the end, in virtually all branches of industry, the absence of patent protection would have had little or no impact on the innovative efforts of a majority of firms (Mazzoleni and Nelson, 1998; Cohen et al., 2000).
Pierre Desrochers, Johns Hopkins University

But he would still have that chance. He can still have Honda sign a NDA, he can still outsource manufacturing, he can still sell the idea to someone who'll take it further... None of those options actually depend on patents. People still invented and got rich off their inventions before patents were invented and people still get rich off non-patented inventions today.

Indeed, for most firms trade secrets, know-how, lead time to markets, continuing technological innovation, licensing, name recognition, service capabilities and the use of complementary marketing and manufacturing capabilities are often deemed more effective than patent protection.
Pierre Desrochers, Johns Hopkins University

But, remember that "humanity" did not develop the engine

As many psychologists and historians of technology have shown, innovation does not proceed through major breakthroughs by specific individuals, but rather through the collaboration of different people who, through small and cumulative improvements, yield novel and useful artifacts over time (Basalla, 1988). All of patent law, on the other hand, is based on the assumption that an invention is a discrete and novel entity that can be assigned to the individual who is determined by the courts to be its legitimate creator. The associations of an invention with other existing or past artifacts are therefore obscured. Despite its philosophical foundation, however, the patent system cannot entirely obscure the true nature of technological change. As I have already mentioned, virtually every new patent infringes in some way on other patents. Furthermore, most patented innovation are typically very minor improvements.
Pierre Desrochers, Johns Hopkins University

Yes, there should be provisions in patent law that say, "if you choose to do nothing with this invention you forfeit your patent rights", but this example does not invalidate patents as a whole.

And how would you enforce that provision? No, that example alone does not invalidate the patent system, but that in combination with all the others, do. Like the one where two companies invent the same thing at the same time, but only one can be awarded a patent, effectively "stealing" the work of the other. And yes, this is actually a pretty common occurance since most inventions seem to come about when they are "ready", ie when the inventors get the necessary creative sparks from the rest of the world. Or like the examples of the patent trolls, the hoarders and the minefield layers...

There are very real situations when a patent system is beneficial

Name three.

pinko ideas

Let's see here; I want a free market for ideas and knowledge, while you want the government to control it and you call ME a pinko? That's pretty rich.

to prevent undercutting and market espionage

Aha! But patents do NOT prevent any of those. There are separate laws against them which have nothing whatsoever to do with patents.

I suggest you read up on the mounting criticism against the whole notion of locking up ideas. You can start with that old pinko Thomas Jefferson:

It would be curious then, if an idea, the fugitive fermentation of an individual brain, could, of natural right, be claimed in exclusive and stable property. If nature has made any one thing less susceptible than all others of exclusive property, it is the action of the thinking power called an idea, which an individual may exclusively possess as long as he keeps it to himself; but the moment it is divulged, it forces itself into the possession of every one, and the receiver cannot dispossess himself of it. Its peculiar character, too, is that no one possesses the less, because every other possesses the whole of it.

But he would still have that chance. He can still have Honda sign a NDA, he can still outsource manufacturing, he can still sell the idea to someone who'll take it further... None of those options actually depend on patents. People still invented and got rich off their inventions before patents were invented and people still get rich off non-patented inventions today.

Indeed, for most firms trade secrets, know-how, lead time to markets, continuing technological innovation, licensing, name recognition, service capabilities and the use of complementary marketing and manufacturing capabilities are often deemed more effective than patent protection.
Pierre Desrochers, Johns Hopkins University

But, remember that "humanity" did not develop the engine

As many psychologists and historians of technology have shown, innovation does not proceed through major breakthroughs by specific individuals, but rather through the collaboration of different people who, through small and cumulative improvements, yield novel and useful artifacts over time (Basalla, 1988). All of patent law, on the other hand, is based on the assumption that an invention is a discrete and novel entity that can be assigned to the individual who is determined by the courts to be its legitimate creator. The associations of an invention with other existing or past artifacts are therefore obscured. Despite its philosophical foundation, however, the patent system cannot entirely obscure the true nature of technological change. As I have already mentioned, virtually every new patent infringes in some way on other patents. Furthermore, most patented innovation are typically very minor improvements.
Pierre Desrochers, Johns Hopkins University

Yes, there should be provisions in patent law that say, "if you choose to do nothing with this invention you forfeit your patent rights", but this example does not invalidate patents as a whole.

And how would you enforce that provision? No, that example alone does not invalidate the patent system, but that in combination with all the others, do. Like the one where two companies invent the same thing at the same time, but only one can be awarded a patent, effectively "stealing" the work of the other. And yes, this is actually a pretty common occurance since most inventions seem to come about when they are "ready", ie when the inventors get the necessary creative sparks from the rest of the world. Or like the examples of the patent trolls, the hoarders and the minefield layers...

There are very real situations when a patent system is beneficial

Name three.

pinko ideas

Let's see here; I want a free market for ideas and knowledge, while you want the government to control it and you call ME a pinko? That's pretty rich.

to prevent undercutting and market espionage

Aha! But patents do NOT prevent any of those. There are separate laws against them which have nothing whatsoever to do with patents.

I suggest you read up on the mounting criticism against the whole notion of locking up ideas. You can start with that old pinko Thomas Jefferson:

It would be curious then, if an idea, the fugitive fermentation of an individual brain, could, of natural right, be claimed in exclusive and stable property. If nature has made any one thing less susceptible than all others of exclusive property, it is the action of the thinking power called an idea, which an individual may exclusively possess as long as he keeps it to himself; but the moment it is divulged, it forces itself into the possession of every one, and the receiver cannot dispossess himself of it. Its peculiar character, too, is that no one possesses the less, because every other possesses the whole of it.

Science will never present us with a peer-reviewed study proving once and for all that you should be good to your fellow man

Interesting claim! I have two ideas that may spark some discussion.

Economics is a form of science, and one interesting branch of economic study is the study of cooperation. Some economists study this through statistics and computer modeling (http://www.brook.edu/es/dynamics/models/pd.htm). Some economists and psychologists study this through models of happiness (http://www.quebecoislibre.org/05/050415-16.htm). Some study this through research into primate behavior (http://www.primates.com/monkeys/fairness.html). The general consensus is that, although a free economic system requires there to be some level of competition, cooperation and mutual assistance are innately bred into us by natural selection, since it helps us achieve things we could not achieve alone.

Philosophy, the study of thought that gave rise to modern scientific theory (http://www.constitution.org/bacon/nov_org.htm), has always been capable of tackling these moral issues. Some of the the best writing on the topic of justice includes John Rawls "Justice as Fairness" (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/067 4005112/002-0144128-7693626?v=glance), in which he argues that the best possible society is one in which we are all treated fairly. He has a pretty clever way of defining fairness, too. If you dislike Rawls, there are tons of other philosophers to choose from who have created logical arguments for treating men justly - Socrates and Locke are two others you may wish to read, or Hospers if you're into the libertarian thing (although his vision of fairness can occasionally sound a little like the mindless pursuit of wealth).

Science is a process that we can use to evaluate ideas through objective criteria. It makes no difference whether those ideas are biological, astronomical, legal, or moral. As long as we have an objective, measurable goal, we can use the scientific method to try to better understand which ideas work and which ideas don't.

To respond to your rhetorical questions, yes, economics does show us that there is a lot to be gained by eliminating hunger. Philosophy and ethical theory does indeed show us that we can achieve more if we pursue our interests living within a just and fair social framework.

What does make me very sad is when people say that you cannot be a good, moral person if you don't believe in God. Neither one causes the other.

Only the largest most highly profitable Oil and Defense Companies should should get Billions of $ in government handouts, like the Bush energy "plan".

What do they say, "In the US, it is communism for the rich and [I can't remember the rest]..."
http://www.quebecoislibre.org/05/050415-16.htm

While it's surely a good thing that people will soon have the option of receiving foreign (i.e. States) programming, we need to look at the big picture.

What a lot of people don't realize is the gradual demise of free speach in Canada.

Want to be fined for calling someone a queer? Maybe you deserve a bloody lip, but does 1000$ from your pocket sound better? An excellent summary of what's going on can be found on the Volokh Conspiracy (I stumbled upon it by chance): http://volokh.com/archives/archive_2004_10_07.shtm l#1097586698

Moreover, the recent controversy surrounding the refusal of the federal communication commission (CRTC) to renew the licence of a Québec-based private radio station on the grounds that its content was inacceptable. This link, in French, provides a good résumé: http://www.quebecoislibre.org/04/040915-15.htm (Other articles include a history of the Canadian government censorship of private broadcasters.) If the libertarian blog "Le Québécois Libre" isn't to your taste, you can surely find the story on the CBC's or Radio Canada's web site.

Canada is a great place. Québec even better. :-D But free speech is rapidly becoming more and more restricted. I believe that despite what's going on in the States, they have more liberties in this regard and quite frankly, I'm jealous!

So no, I wouldn't expect to see any tubes erected by ET3. Now or ever. This is just another example of the deep flaws in the patent system.