Slashdot Mirror
Wipout Essay Results
chrestomanci writes "The Register is reporting on the
results of a counter-essay contest run by wipout.net (an international organisation that seeks to limit the reach of the WIPO and intellectual property rights in general) against the WIPO's own essay contest, both with the title "What does intellectual property mean to you in your daily life?". A telling slogan reads: Today, the WTO pulled the trigger on another 2.500 poor AIDS victims."
I dont belive the WTO goes around shooting aids victims.
Boy, this sure is an interesting story. I can't wait to write my entry for the contest. I mean, it's every kid's dream growing up to win an essay contest about Intellectual Property, isn't it?
Right Of Intellectual Property AND Public Spaces Of Information
Juan Mateos García
In this trial I am going to indicate some of the supposed theoreticians in which itself fundamentan the intellectual rights of property (DPI). Subsequently I will analyze briefly as they are able these to affect to the future possibilities of communities that they create information without I encourage of gain, as the open movement of code, concentrating me in certain dynamic aspects of the DPI, mainly their nature vírica. During the following discussion I will employ the extensive form information term, including data, discoveries and scientific theories, technological appliances and artistic creations. Intellectual property: private and public interests The intellectual property rights framework is based on the premise that one of the incentivos basic that motivates the creators of information is the monetario. The DPI they guarantee these persons a legal control upon the distribution of you said "goods", and permits them to obtain a reward, so much economic as social, by its productive activity. The need of this type of protection of the rights of author or creative is derives from what we would be able to call as "intangibilidad" of the information, associate to the relative facility with the one that can be carry out its reproduction and distribution. Simplifying, we would be able to say that to copy a book or an idea simply are necessary paper and ink. To do the same thing with a car, one must employ, on the other hand, matters cousins and a difficult, complex, and long process of production (and including thus, the producers of cars protect the "information" content in specific models by means of DPI). Thus, according to the traditional economic theory, in absence of DPI, not they would exist incentivos for the creation of information, given that al to be able to be this copied and redistribuida without restrictions neither control, would be very difficult for its potential producers to obtain a reward by its intial effort. In this way, has laid out to consider that the technological development and the apparition again methods for the reproduction and transmisión of information, just as Internet, they create a threat for the intellectual property and they do necessary the fortalecimiento of the states of DPI in force. Another essential property of the information is that produces externalidades, this is, alien positive effects to its creator. For example, the access to data upon a scientific discovery can benefit to thousands of investigators in that same field, although not they be directly related to the responsible for said discovery. The new fragments of information become pieces of a puzzle that they can turn out to be useful for the technological and scientific advance in many distinct fronts. They exist, therefore, large benefits potential associates to a flow of information with the smaller possible restrictions. Here it is where the conflict among the private interests of the creator of information arises, supposedly motivated by the benefits monetarios that can obtain thanks to their discovery, and the public interests of more more extensive communities than they can need that new information for the execution of other scientific tasks and innovadoras. The DPI they should seek an equilibrium among these two categories of interests, that in many cases they can enter conflict, and due to it everything that refers to the modification or intensificación of the rights of property upon cultural and intellectual goods carefully should be meditated and submitted to debate. It should be tried that the individuals arrange of incentivos to undertake activities innovadoras and creative without, simultaneously, necks of bottle they are believed and restrictions that impede the aprovechamiento of the new discoveries by more more extensive communities. It is this type of debate the one that absent encounter in the growing tendency to consider the information as merchandise, being dispensing with its characteristics of well public. The privatización of the public spaces of information Added al problem of the trade-off among rights of the author and right of the society, the question of those individuals appears that do not behave according to the supposed subyacentes to the DPI, and that they can see their activities complicated or impeded by these. We would be able to say that the model that fundamenta the DPI favors the creation of information on the part of certain type of communities, with a series of motivaciones, marginando to those that itselfThey behave according to supposed distinct. We think for example in those that they create information and they distribute it for Internet without requiring nothing to change: the fortalecimiento of the DPI, and the growing tendency to consider the information as a merchandise property of someone can put in danger the existence of the existing reservations of "public information" created by these, al to promote its appropriation on the part of individuals with economic objectives, doing to disappear finally the conducts that notThey are found based on motivaciones monetarias. We would be able to say that of the same way that those motivated by money only they will create information if their rights upon her can be assured, those with the aspiration of destining the information that produce to public spaces will see its efforts desincentivados if turns out to be simple for other to be appropriated of its contributions (retiring them of said "espacios"). An example preocupante of this type of behaviors oportunistas would be the appropriation of protocolos of public communication on the part of private businesses. They exist large incentivos for this type of conducts, due to that the control upon these "bridges" (that all the ones that employ certain middles of communication should cross) can guarantee large benefits to its owners. Al to add extensions protected by DPI to this type of standards, these groups can obtain a strategic control upon them. Would be observing a privatización of the public spaces of information favored by the tendency to the extension and intensificación of the DPI. Copyright and Copyleft With the objective of avoiding this type of processes of "contamination of standards", distinct groups have resorted to legal instruments heterodoxos and innovadores, as the General one Public License that protects al operating system Linux of the appropriation on the part of organizations with commercial interests. Al contrary that the DPI traditional, that we would be able to call generic as "copyright", these DPI alternative ( "copyleft") they are base on the contagion of the characteristic of "publicity" to private fragments of information. For example, any piece of software that be added to a system covered by the GPL is seen submitted to the conditions you imposed by the GPL, that they are of opening, transparency and publicity. This special characteristic has given rise to protests about the character "vírico" of GPL, that according to some they affirm, can damage seriously al system of DPI and to the producing industries of information. We find ourselves, in this case, before a discussion among groups with distinct interests, in certain parallel form to the ones that has described previously. While some they consider to the information mainly as a merchandise produced and intercambiada following motivaciones economic, other they seem to be more more next to the definition of information as well public, and they distribute it freely with diverse objectives, as for example that of maximizing the quantities of this produced "commonly" (following the type of reasons to the ones that have alluded to previously when spoke of externalidades). In this conflict among ideologies and aspirations up to a point contrapuestas, they can observe as the distinct groups they seek to influence in the legal framework so that this favor the execution of its activities. On the one hand are the agents that act for spirit of gain and they try to promote definitions of the DPI more more extensive and powerful, that they permit them to control and to expand their active intellectuals. By another they are found those that they try to avoid the appropriation of their public spaces of information and of those tools and protocolos that need to develop their activities. The fact that the first be used to being large businesses with greater resources and experience in practice of the cabildeo has given rise to that be its influence the most most notable one in the process of fijación of political priorities that determines the future evolution of the legal framework. The character vírico of the intellectual rights of property An important question that many seem to forget in this debate is that the instruments of copyright, al the same as the of copyleft, they possess properties víricas: they tend to infect the public information becoming it in private. Any type of information desprotegida, public and with some economic type of value can be appropriate with few difficulties. Al to acceptDefinitions each more more lax time of "originality", the registrations of DPI permit the privatización of enormous assemblies of information to the ones that suffices with adding extensions "proprietary". Imaginémonos the piece of information "TO", public. Adding him another piece of information "B", private, a business can create "C" ( = TO + B + B based on "TO" (public), but of its property. The use of these strategies enables the expansion of the private spaces of information at the expense of any public type of reservation. Facing this expansion of the DPI they arise measured like the GPL, likewise aggressive but in the contrary sense. The one that it be accused of having properties "víricas" results as much as less ironic: have seen that if is not guaranteed that the extensions added to a piece protected by GPL return public property, is accepted implicitly that the piece protected by GPL finish being become private, according to the process described previously. This it can explain us some of the reasons that they underlie to the opposition al GPL on the part of large businesses of software as Microsoft, famous by their use of tactical of "adoption and extension" (embrace and extend) of public pieces of information. In this type of arguments they exist large dose of hypocrisy and arrogance, and seems to be affirmed implicitly that the valid only model for the creation of information is that based on motivaciones monetarias. Conclusion we find Ourselves, finally, with a situation conflictiva: the individuals carry out productive activities to satisfy a series of aspirations and objective. The legal framework constitutes part of the entorno in which they unfold, and can favor or entorpecer its efforts. The political decisions and regulatorias, especially in which refers to the DPI they can affect of deep form to the possibilities of certain communities to follow developing their information creation activities. The biggest influence of the businesses in this context is giving rise to a desequilibrio inside the relative importance assigned to the objectives of the DPI, favoring a privatización of the public spaces of information. Thus, the instruments of copyleft arise like a defense on the part of communities with distinct interests to the monetarios. In my opinion the opposition and attack to these instruments forms part of the global tendency toward the intensificación of the DPI that already has described. In this situation of conflict among groups with aspirations contrapuestas is necessary, therefore, a debate in which be recognized that the incentivos monetarios not they are the ONLY motivaciones for the creation of information, and in which a transparent and open discussion be carry out about how obtaining an equilibrium among the distinct objectives of the DPI. What it seems clear is that if tools for the protection of the public forums of information as the GPL are weakened or eliminated, will be difficult that many persons inside them follow contributing and working for motivaciones alien to the monetaria. I create necessary, therefore, a replanteamiento of the present tendencies in the political and legal framework, and a greater tolerance and sensibility toward the distinct motivaciones of the groups dedicated to the task of creating information.
Worldwide Are Your Papers In Order Network
http://www.wipout.net/essays/0216holt.htm
m
This essay is pretty good, but suffers from some examples that aren't that interesting.
Clearly the best is the Sri Lankan essay on medicines and Microsoft software license costs.
http://www.wipout.net/essays/0314kumar.ht
BTW, sorry about that FP stuff. CLearly we all suck...
- Kaos games and encryption systems developer
Under lynx, of course, all you see is an vast landscape of clickable (and un-ALT tagged) GIF's.
They may be all for freedom of expression, but they haven't yet mastered freedom of browsing!
"Today, the WTO pulled the trigger on another 2.500 poor AIDS victims."
No, 2,500 AIDS victims pulled the trigger on themselves by making stupid decisions about sex.
Then the drug companies come along to help and they are attacked by bad Marxist panderings like this.
Guess what, AIDS is an extremely tough disease and extremely expensive to fight. Extremely expensive. And the government's contributions don't even come close to the cost of developing AIDS drugs. And for every drug and research project that succeeds, many many more fail.
If the drug companies were really in some big capitalist consipracy to screw over the world they wouldn't have picked AIDS (a preventable disease) to do it with. They would be screwing you over with the polio and smallpox. Instead, the evil drug companies pretty much eliminated those diseases from the planet.
Brian Ellenberger
I'm not a huge fan of patents, but drug patents are one of the few types of patents that make sense. Why do we need patents? To subsidize the cost of innovation. And the cost of innovation is often steep, it has always been much easier to ripoff someone's idea than develop it yourself. Often times, the inventor doesn't profit at all from his invention. (see Xerox->Apple->Windows)
For pharamceutical companies, the cost to develop drugs is high, not just because of all the trial and error involved (although rational drug design does help), but because of all the FDA-mandated trials involved. The patent system, as far as I know, is the only system that has been developed to offset the costs of getting a drug FDA-approved.
Its not like a software patent, where the costs of innovation are mostly pizza and Jolt. I would like to see a better system for compensating drugs companies for the money they put into getting a drug approved, but I have not seen one. Maybe instead granting drugs patents for a set number of years, we could grant them based on the time it takes to recoup the trial costs? At least then we could minimize the damage done by granting a monopoly on a life-saving substance.
Websurfing: The Next Generation - StumbleUpon
I would like to see a system for drug patents that is 'the highest bid without going over' the relms of being reasonable.
IOW, it would be cool if a special exception was made for drug patents that caps their limitations in a way that is still high enough to pay for R&D and a significant profit, but low enough that thousands of people aren't dying because the cost is too high.
"Never, never suspect the dreams within the dreams of dreaming children." ~The Amazon Quartet
Guess what, those people aren't dumber than you. I'm pretty sure that plenty of those 2,500 victims are smarter than you and me.
No, 2,500 AIDS victims pulled the trigger on themselves by making stupid decisions about sex.
:)
Not true! Many AIDS victims are born with HIV because of their parent's decisions. Unprotected sex is a big cause of the spreading, but when you spread your spermies into a woman. She might get HIV, but since you are unprotected she will probably also end up with a baby.
Also, my two cents: Anyone saying that AIDS is a disease that punishes gays is definately wrong. I think its just another reason not to be gay in San Francisco
Ever need an online dictionary?
While the cost of development is high the cost of production is really low. Now when you have a bunch of people that wouldnt be able to pay for the drugs anyway why not just give them the drug at lower or no cost. Such cost differentiation is not unheard of. for example some drugs for pets are cheap, while the identical drugs for humans are expensive. Thats because people wouldnt pay the high costs of a drug for a pet.
Dude, I'm callin' shenanigans on you. In sub-saharan Africa up to 20% of the population is infected with AIDS. Burundi is a good example, they have a 19% infection rate. It isn't as though they are being unsafe or overly promiscuous; there is no birth or disease control available to them, and furthermore, everybody has it, so avoiding it is rendered difficult.
Yes, there IS a conspiracy of sorts. The conspiracy is that the pharmaceutical companies and their extremely powerful allies won't allow AIDS drugs to be manufactured overseas. Treatment is so expensive because the pharms. charge markups in excess of 1000% on the cost of manufacture. The conspiracy is that money is always weighed above human life in our country.
You don't get AIDS by sex alone. It can be conveyed in numerous other ways. A cut, for example could be exposed to it via contaminated substances, etc.
I am not merely a "consumer" or a "taxpayer". I am a Citizen of the State of Texas
Education? A human being that lacks the common sense to wear a rubber while having sex with stranger is probably not long in this world anyway. Wreckless lifestyles usually catch up with people sooner or later.
You also have to make the distinction between "stupid decisions" - and "stupid mistakes" - very different IMO
Also, where I live there is a really serious drug problem, and every day, several shops/people are robbed by junkies who use a bloody needle as their weapon - i.e. "gimme the cash or you're gonna have a very long, painful death and a fucking lonely one too."
Then there are people who get into drunken fights, scuffle a bit and wind up with another persons blood in their cuts, etc... etc... You aren't always presented with a choice, some people are just unlucky. No pulling the trigger on themselves, just going through a normal day and having something unfortunate happen.
The conspiracy is the religous leaders won't allow education about safe sex becuase if these people start using condoms they start producing less little zealots.
The church was the first multinational power structure, don't rule them out so soon.
Sure god is dead, but he ain't buried yet.
Guess what, those people aren't dumber than you. I'm pretty sure that plenty of those 2,500 victims are smarter than you and me.
:( I don't care if you're African, American, Gay, Straight, or whatnot--when an uncurable disease is trasmitted primarily through sex, keeping your pants on until you make a lifetime commitment seems like the best idea in the world.
And most of them still made decisions that put them at risk for AIDS, and they're suffering for it.
I'm all for curing the damn disease, and I have nothing but sympathy and sorrow for those who got it through no fault of their own--but I just can't bring myself to feel pity for people who engage in loose sex with AIDS out there, especially in countries where it's rampant.
If there's ever been a solid medical reason for lifetime monogamy, it's AIDS.
I hate to say it, but that's how I feel.
Well, thanks to Bush and the gang, kids in the U.S. are no longer going to learn about safe sex in schools. Gee, that makes sense- there's a teenage pregnancy problem as well as an endemic of STD's, so let's stop teaching kids about condoms! It's so stupid, it's gotta make sense!
Today, the WTO pulled the trigger on another 2.500 poor AIDS victims."
There is a great deal of question as to whether the infrastructure exists to deliver and administer the anti-AIDS drugs even if they we made available at zero cost.
We are talking about countries where the per capita health care spending is less than $10/year.
These are also the same places where other diseases that could be cured at far less cost than AIDS go uncontrolled. Malaria kills far more people than AIDS, and is far less expensive to fight. How can you make a moral case about AIDS drugs when in fact spending the money on fighting other diseases would offer greater relief from suffering with the same resources?
It's not just religious leaders, it's also the U.S. government.
(I've heard trolls call him Richard 'Master' Stallman, but I assume this isn't correct).
I do know that ESR stands for Stephen/Steven/Something - but the details on the M are difficult to find.
Slashdot -- away!
No?
ok... nevermind. it must be the ragweed, then...
mmm... yeah... You see, we're putting the cover sheets on all TPS reports now before they go out...
Have you read the English winner of the WIPO contests?
For me, it was a succinct summary of many of the problems with intellectual property. It would have been more fitting in the counter-essay competition. Basically, the author lists from a personal perspective how harmful all the laws can be and then says "But it's the law so watcha gonna do?" (I'm paraphrasing)
How is that an endorsement of IP?
Am I missing something?
And those people will be dead in less than 20 years anyway. Unfortunately there will be others to take their places and then we'll have to listen to them bitch and moan about drug prices until they die too. It never ends.
I'm sorry, but that's a strawman argument. The percentage of babies and children dying of AIDS is extremely small. And the gay comment is another strawman. I mentioned nothing about gays. AIDS is an equal opportunity killer of people who are stupid about sex.
And finally the blame for the children's AIDS should go to the stupid parents and NOT the drug companies!
Brian Ellenberger
Since it takes money, the root of all evil, to develop such drugs, the drugs would not exist without the potential of large bags of money. Several of the richest people on the planet could not provide the funds for the drugs, but then the drug comps would be the richest. Money is also power, and the rich are not going to give that away. The gap between rich and poor is widening, the govt is the only entity able to stop it, but they too need money to become elected thus perpetuating this whole vicious circle. Capitolism by its very nature is evil, but it is still the best system in the world today. No other form of govt even comes close to providing for its people, because at least you have a chance at money/power in a capitolistic society.
Its like John Lennon said, 'Life is like a shit sandwich, the more bread you have the less shit you have to eat.'
It's not the morallity of the defense that's questioned, but of the attacker.
In other words, how can you make a moral case about any cure when charging outrageous prices for it?
Buy a Nintendo DS Lite
Some of the greatest medical inventors in this world's history purposefully did NOT patent their work. Radium, Penecillin, polio vaccine (not just once, but twice) and many other wonderful discoveries that cost years of research to develop were given to the world free of charge.
How many of you ever donated money to the American Heart Association, Jerry's Kids, or a thousand other medical related charity organizations? I have, more often than I can remember and I've no idea how much I've contributed to the advance of medical science. Why should I be charged these outrageous prices on pharmaceuticals my money helped to create?
Medical patents aren't about recouping costs - it's about putting more money into stockholder's pockets. Take a look at their financial statements before you claim they need those patents (and the right to charge whatever they want for the drugs while locked behind the patent) to pay for their R&D. Many of them also get money from the Government as well as private donations to help pay the costs of creating new pharmaceuticals. So Taxpayers are also helping to offset their R&D costs.
In my opinion, any company who accepts donations (of any kind) should not be granted a patent - any discoveries made with public money (even a single penny of public money) should be granted freely to the public and not locked down behind a patent.
Don't just complain - DO something about it!
Also look at the WIPO essays. The English one doesn't appear to argue directly for or against IP laws. He mentions the disadvantages that IP laws have in terms of education and entertainment, often being worse for both the user and the creator, while being glad of the protection he'll get for his own ideas. Personally I think what's needed is a non-patent-office, where people can register their ideas and allow them to be used freely, preventing real patents from being made on similar ideas. It would act as an archive of evidence demonstrating that many patents that are applied for are not original. This would prevent stupid patents that are based on common sense and that could easily be thought up by someone else without being aware that someone has come up with a similar idea.
C'mon, I don't know the statistics, but I'm sure the vast majority of AIDS victims are not infants or blood transfusees (how d'ya like that word, spelling/grammar nazis?), they're people who've had promiscuous sex or used unclean drug paraphenelia. I have nothing but sympathy for anyone who contracts it, even it it was from a night with the goatse.cx man. Nobody deserves to die before their time. But the fact is, 99% of the time, AIDS is a preventable disease. I thank the original poster for his objectivity, especially in regards to the "evil drug corporations."
Anyone saying that AIDS is a disease that punishes gays is definately wrong.
Of course. Diseases don't punish people. They merely try to survive and reproduce, just like any other organism. But having sex with someone who's sexual history (and current status) you're not absolutely sure of is like sneaking up on a mother bear and her cubs-- no matter how uneducated you were about it, somewhere it should register that it could get you killed, and if you wind up dead, that definitely sucks, but don't play innocent with me, and don't critisize the government for not filling the pool when you jump in with your eyes closed.
Today, the WTO pulled the trigger on another 2.500 poor AIDS victims.
Besides, what's another two and a half people, in the grand scheme of things?
c-hack.com |
" Today is World Intellectual Property day... What! Why didn't anyone tell me! I could have been planning a party!"
We wanted to tell you, but you refused to sign the NDA.
The "M" stands for "Molester," as in child molester.
I'll keep in mind that everyone in this country is completely and totally unaware of what sex is.
Idiots like you think just telling someone something will influence their actions. Hey, fucktard, all sorts of people start smoking every day. They don't care.
The same is true with sex. THEY DON'T FUCKING CARE
and what about the person who contacts AIDS even though a condom was worn. What then sir? Enlighten us
Anyone who has wears a condom in hopes that he will be protected from STD exposure damn well should know that it is not 100% effective. So unless he is truly ignorant of the facts, he is willfully putting his life at risk, and should not whine "but I wore a condom!" if the roulette wheel lands on double-zero.
It is not an inalienable human right to have sex with another person free from any and all consequences.
Carousel is a lie!
What is this communist tripe?
There is no conspiracy. Anyone who wants any drug can get one. AZT, Aspirin, Heroin, you name it. You can get it anywhere. The question is, are you able to pay for it. I don't know anyone who sells drugs, whether the street dealer, Walgreens, or Bayer that will sell their drugs for free.
Treatment may be expensive because of the pharmaceutical companies, but WITHOUT those very same companies you deplore these drugs would not even exist.
Are you so foolish to think drug companies should develop drugs for free?? Who would by the equipment? Who would pay the researchers? You?
Of course, your solution would be to mug every citizen in this country through taxation for the benefit of some barbarians in a foreign country.
Instead of crying about human life and wanting to steal from me, why don't lazy buffoons like yourself go out and contribute something to society? Why don't YOU design that next aids vaccine and give it away for free.
I don't read or respond to AC posts
What the general public calls "safe sex" is laughable. And thanks to our collective denial instict, the more honest term "safer sex" never caught on---not to mention the even better choices, "safer-but-not-totally-risk-free sex," or "safer-but-still-don't-complain-if-he-doesn't-call -you-afterwards sex".
"cost of manufacture" and "cost of development" are two different things. You can't just ignore the cost of research, the amortized costs of failed drug trials, and so forth.
I'm not completely against circumventing traditional intellectual property laws in case like this, but if you don't provide a means for drug companies to profit from their research, or at least recoup their costs, then the drugs will never get developed in the first place. And frankly I think that people who make exaggerated statements like "1000% markup" don't seem to appreciate this fact.
So fine, start giving away AZT for free. But since that isn't a cure, and you haven't provided for any drug company to spend the money that must be spent to develop one, don't go whining if those people still die.
I'll grant you that there's an alternative: provide significant sums of money to major drug companies to perform research on such drugs, under the condition that they sell them at, say, only twice the cost of manufacture. But we're talking a truly large percentage of the R&D budgets of the major worldwide drug companies here. I'd be interested to see exactly how much that would be.
It is of course quite amusing that the only way to enslave drug companies and their employees to work for free is by in fact using guns or other forms of deadly persuasion.
The Marxist here can decry the drug companies TODAY for not giving away the fruits of their labor for free. He can equate inaction with murder.
But what happens when drug companies refuse to develop drugs because these same marxists constantly steal them?
They have no choice but to persuade their citizenry not with money, but violence.
So, you won't develop that drug for $4.75 an hour? fine, do it or you go to the slave labor camps!
Suggesting Capitalists are murderers! nothing could be more amusing. Of course, it is not amusing to the 100 million who have died in the last century at the hands of Marxists and their murderous toys.
But who gives a fuck about them?
I don't read or respond to AC posts
The IP system, at least in the US, is broken. Whether or not its broken beyond repair is a matter of conjecture.
Of course, as Stallman states, using the phase IP is in fact dangerous and supportive of the system. But its the only word which collectively refers to patents, trademarks, copyrights, trade secrets, and so on and so forth: all of which have essentially one thing in common -- controlling information.
Anyways, here's my solution to the current IP problems: (1) Reduce both the scope and duration of IP laws; (2) Give innovators the choice between "control without compensation" or "compensation without control," but not both. This allows MS to be compensated, but does not allow them to control; it also allows FSF to control (to ensure freedom) but not be compensated (which is basically the way the situation is now). Also, an option should be given for an intermediate between control or compensation; in such an intermediate, there would be less control and less compensation than in either extreme, however.
Btw, in regards to AIDS drugs, to those of you defending companies not giving poor people in Africa drugs at the cost of protection, I hope that you people find yourself sick with some disease and too poor to pay some greedy corporation for the cure.
AIDS "treatments" are NOT useful for very long. HIV adapts rapidly; by the time the 20-year patent on HIV treatments has expired, the "treatment" will completely useless. Thus, the PUBLIC is NEVER EVER compensated for their support of patent owners to HIV-treatments.
Some countries which I praise have chosen to IGNORE drug patents for the GOOD OF THEIR CITIZENS. This is what countries SHOULD do if they need to, as drug companies can't sue a government (sure, they could sue a gov't in that gov'ts own courts, but that would be unwinnable).
social sciences can never use experience to verify their statemen
In other words, how can you make a moral case about any cure when charging outrageous prices for it?
There is no cure for "AIDS" for which to charge "outrageous prices", only caustic drugs which purportedly slow the progression of the diagnose of "HIV+" to "AIDS Patient". Nevertheless, some people become long term patients - typically not because of some drug, but because they have some purpose in life. http://www.aliveandwell.org
Does anyone know much about the current status of Magic Johnson? (NBA basketball player, announced he was HIV positive ~1991, retired from the game, still living). He has/had an interesting ritual - sold everything he owned every morning ('cause he has "HIV" & that means you'll be dead at any time, right?), only to purchase everything back when the day was over and he was still alive. I'm wondering specifically if he takes any drugs for the "condition"?
Learn the rules so you know how to break them properly.
www.teslabox.com
But you don't actually care about the truth. I'm sure that your dimestore version of classical economics just can't account for such macroeconomic realities. You just want to justify business as usual. So I'm going to simply call you names. You are a blowhard and an ignorant prat.
In case of many women, it's a killer of people who trust their husbands. Or, in some parts of the world, of people who get transfusions. Or who get raped. But of course, in the sort of pluto-Calvinist world you inhabit, everyone is getting just what they deserve, right? Funny how people who are getting what they want tend to sustain that philosophy.
Our lawyers will be in contact with you. You better not have a copy of DeCSS when we search your house, you pompous ass.
/^[A-Z0-9._%+-]+@[A-Z0-9.-]+\.[A-Z]{2,4}$/i
But this problem gets solved all the time and without any official checks on income.
The pets example was one. Nobody who can afford a drug will eat the version made for dogs no matter howe much cheaper it is, even if they know its the same stuff.
So i dont compare african people with pets i will give another example. Banana Republic and old navy owned by the same corp (i think) have clothes of pretty much the same quality (with some differences in design) and fro very different prices. But do more well to do people "cheat" by buying old navy when they should be buying banana. Most dont. They actually want to buy the more expensive stuff in order to express their place in society.
Now i think similar price differentiation can easily be achieved with aids drugs. If you put a large notice on the drug packaging that says "not approved by FDA" that will prevent many people that can afford the fda approved stuff from using it.
But you can do much better. You have so much racism and class resentment working in your favor. So if you put a note on the drug that says "free aids drugs to be given to dirt poor africans, not approved by the fda, take it on your own risk" nobody will take this unless they have no choice and no way to afford the other stuff. Even the more well to do africans will take the expensive version. Of course the drugs will be of the same quality.
I really dont mean to be offensive to anyone. Racism is a regretable reality, but in this situation it can really be used to provide some cheap drugs without risk for drug manufacturers of eroding the sales of their expensive brands.
Slashdot Reader: This is so unfair. Starving children in Burundi are dying of AIDS because they can't afford the medicine. People in Westernized countries should pay for the cost of research because they can afford it.
Some time later....
Slashdot Reader: Guess what. I just bought this DVD for $2 from a website in Burundi, but the damn thing won't work in my player because of the regional encoding. Why should I have to pay $30 for a DVD when you can buy the exact same thing in Burundi for $2?
-a
How to rationalize theft.
Magic Johnson has been on the "cocktail" since 1991. His viral load is almost zero. I'm sure he understands that any day now that combination of drugs he takes might cease working. I suspect his optimistic attitude is a big, big help in keeping him healthy.
I hope he survives long enough to give that weenie mayor of ours Jimmy Hahn what-for when he stands for reelection. Hahn's tactics were appalling. Heh, maybe if the San Fernando Valley succeeds in splitting from LA Hahn won't be our mayor anymore. Stay tuned...the battle coming up this Fall will be very interesting.
Knowledge is power. Knowledge shared is power multiplied.
When I read the article, I thought it said somthing like WIPO Essay Results. I thought, "WTF, an essay on taco-snotting or somthing?"
If they you were never told that wearing a rubber and avoiding promiscuous sex can save your life you would probably have AIDS now also. There simply is not enough effort and money put towards AIDS education, especially in third world countries. In Tanzania over half the population has AIDS and it is not because the people of Tanzania are stupid. It is because they do not have access to the information that could save their lives and now because of greedy corporations and inane IP laws they don't have the pharmaceutical that could improve their lives.
FoundNews.com - get paid to blog.,
the US government pays for almost all of the research. Then the drug companies whine and moan about how they need to "recoup" their development costs. Actually, the development cost is mostly the marketing, lobbying, purple food coloring cost. Drugs should be free if you look at the fact that we already pay shitloads up front with our tax dollars. Very little research is independent of the Government, and we pay a majority of the cost of all of such research.
And stop drug companies from direct advertising. Save a lot of money right there for the poor little drug co's, and save a lot of people from pressuring their doctors into giving them treatment that they actually don't need.
Ceci n'est pas un post
It's called "the public domain."
If you come up with a good, original idea, just publish it on any old website (like this one), and submit it to google for archival purposes. Then, if anybody tries to patent it, you can sue to have the patent invalidated due to prior art.
Therein, of course, lies the crux of the problem. You would have to mount the costly legal effort to have the patent invalidated. That's supposed to be the Patent Office's job, but at least here in the USofA, the Patent Office is pitifully negligent when researching prior art. There's a simple reason for that: the PTO is paid to grant patents, not deny them. There's no penalty for a patent investigator (or a patent attorney) if a patent is later invalidated.
Hmmm, a hefty fine for invalidated patents could be a simple, market-oriented way to reduce the number of "bad" patents? Any thoughts?
Ooh, ooh, I think I'll file a patent on "A Method For Reducing The Rate Of Invalidated Patents" and make a million bucks!
Your last statement would lead to people dishonestly sneaking "public" money into research institutions in order for the patents to be rendered worthless. And since when should US (or name your state) public money go toward benefitting companies in some other country. If the patent is going to be free, it should only be free for US taxpayers.
If enough people/organizations put their focus on it, they could purchase enough stock in these biotech firms to gain seats on the board of directors, or enough stock to manipulate the companies into giving away greatly price-reduced drugs to those unable to afford them.
One big issue with giving away drugs is making sure people are properly monitored as to the effect the drugs are having on them, and how well they are keeping their regimen. These aren't silver bullets, if you let a regimen lapse, for any reason, you are allowing the viruses a chance to mutate into a resistent strain. Such a thing has, and is still, leading to pathogens that cannot be easily or cheaply treated, even in the US. A capable medical infrastructure is at least as important as the drugs themselves.
I'm really uncomfortable with "one size fits all" models of incentivizing innovation and distributing goods. What may make sense of consumer electronics may very make no sense for food and medicine.
in the words of the great jim morrison, you're all a bunch of fucking idiots.
"They would be screwing you over with the polio and smallpox. Instead, the evil drug companies pretty much eliminated those diseases from the planet."
Smallpox, I don't know about, but I can tell you about Polio. The vaccine was invented by Jonas Salk, who was working for an university, funded by non-profits. He refused to patent it.
Drug companies today don't even have an incentive to create vaccines or cures -- treatments are much more profitable.
Become a FSF associate member before the low #s are used
I am against AIDS. That is my feeling on this situation.
People in Europe, US and Canada obviously don't understand how good they have it...
Ok, so you are suggesting the avarage pharmaceutical company have a profit-rate of 98% or something like that :-)
Guess you should do check of the finacial reports on some pharmaceutical companies.
Actually I do realize that (as someone who works in the AIDS field). The problem isn't having sex, which is something that needs to happen to have children, its having it be promiscuous. The culture in Africa and now back in the West again is "Sex is Good" no matter what. If you can get laid then you should. The problem is that they don't need that to have babies, they just need a partner. Africa needs a lesson on safe sex.
"Very little research is independent of the Government, and we pay a majority of the cost of all of such research."
Hehe, well my friend, that is NOT true by a long-shot. Drug-companies themselfs pays for most research thats beeing done.
Government sponsored research aims in most cases at base-knowledge and then the industry do detail research into specific areas. This is the case in most countries. This is a model that has been greatly successful by the way.
So it's the drug companies fault that these countries hasn't built up their economies? The drug companies pays huge amount of money for research so they has to charge for their products, period.
" only twice the cost of manufacture."
Thats way low, the manufacturing cost are for most drugs very very low. All the costs are in the research&development that led to it's existance.
Remember, only a small part of all initial research leads to a working formula, of these only about 50% makes it through the clinical trials and are allowed to be sold.
Just because you've decided on a lifetime commitment doesnt make you immune if your partner is or gets infected. The social issues and the percentages work against such a strategy being efficient in countries where AIDS runs rampant.
Keeping your pants on permanently is about the only way you can be pretty sure. If you have that choice.
Roger Ebert gives it the thumbs down!
Yes, the solution is to take the pharmaceutical corps out of the loop. If they prove themselves unable to value life over profits, or are unable to develop a pricing structure that allows access to everyone, they have proven that they cannot live up to the responsibility they have.
That means that governments have to go in and finance more of the medical research when it comes to matters of life and death. The pharmaceutical industry can do the Aspirins and the Viagra of the world so they dont have to deal with those ethical aspects of their buisness they have such a hard time with.
Government financing might not be the absolute best solution, but with cooperation between countries the medical research funding could get larger than it is today (altho a large part is already government financed). And the final products would be more available than they are today.
Well it may have not have been one of the winners, but contains alot of scary info.
m
See:
http://www.wipout.net/essays/0315guten.ht
http://www.wipout.net/essays/0312guten.htm
Interesting tid bits.
In a century we have gone from a 50 % Public domain and 50 % copyrighted work to
99.9999% copyrighted work to a 0.00001% Public domain!!
Also before the renewal clause was abolished 50 - 80 % of authors never renewed the copyright. Mostly bestsellers and continual profitable work was renewed.
Realistically, you're blabbering nonsense: almost all expenses of drug companies are R&D. No, they're not doing the R&D for your sake. They are cynical bastards, caring only about profit. But whatever their motives are, they're the only ones risking huge money in development where you are not willing to sacrifice a single buck. Reality is, YOU do not care about the truth. Only for stretching whatever it takes to present yourself as good/decent/whatever. You're hypocrite, scumbag.
Proof please? I tend to disbelieve comments that serve the political agenda of both the Left (more public funding for AIDs research) and the Right (abstinance as the only solution for AIDs).
Everything I know about the mechanics of AIDs, leads me to believe it isn't like syphilis or herpes in the way it is transmitted. I've yet to see any evidence of a heterosexual AIDs epidemic. Sure, a man who gets AIDs from buggery can transmit it to a woman, and men can transmit it to each other. However, I'd like one bonafide case of AIDs being transmitted from a woman to a man via sex before I'll accept that statement. If the transfer can only happen the other way, man to woman, then AIDs is a very inefficient disease in the heterosexual population. (I'd also point out that AIDs is a non-existent threat among 100% lesbian women, in case anyone thinks I'm making some kind of anti-gay argument here.)
Some URLs: the WIPO essay match was an activity of the WWA (WIPO World Academy). The winners can be found here. As far as I could see they didn't publish the other submissions.
What I find kind of disturbing is asking me what language version do I want to read after my browser has already told them that I want Polish or English... Obviously, they haven't read my web design rules and not reading my web design rules is the root of all web-related evil, now isn't it?
~shiny
WILL HACK FOR $$$
It has always been a pilar of our civilization that ideas can be copied freely.
Sure, to promote people to innovate we have things like patents and copyright. But these give the maker only a temporary rights.
So we should speak about intellectual usufruct, not about intellectual property. To do otherwise is undermining our civilization.
and I really liked this story:
http://www.wipout.net/essays/0904schmeiser.htm
It tells us why we are so wrong no to like big corporations, despite their efforts to make our life nicer
show me the money, friend. i report the facts. the government pays the drug companies for most research. most of these companies don't even pay taxes. prove to me otherwise.
Ceci n'est pas un post
Just because you've decided on a lifetime commitment doesnt make you immune if your partner is or gets infected. The social issues and the percentages work against such a strategy being efficient in countries where AIDS runs rampant.
WHAT?
Tell me, how does two people being devoted to each other exclusively, and totally honest when they're not, NOT reduce your chance to get AIDS?
Oh, and you *do* have to choice to not have sex, by the way. The only people who say that you don't are people who want an excuse to have a lot of sex.
Greed
Greed doesn't discriminate, it affects people of all kith and kin. When greed can be conquered, then, and only then, will humankind be able to progress forward as a whole.
But of course, in the sort of pluto-Calvinist world you inhabit, everyone is getting just what they deserve, right? Funny how people who are getting what they want tend to sustain that philosophy.
Almost as funny as how people who are getting what they deserve tend to sustain your Liberal/Socialist philosphy.
Here ya go, mon Marxist idiot: Goddamn the Pusher Man
So, these people have this drug patented, you want it. They produced it because they knew they could patent it and make good on their investment. But, you say, we should take it. It's for the good of the people.
Suppose you take it. Now, who is going to invest to kill the next plague? Or even other, current plagues, like cancer, or arthritis?
You're proposing to kill the system that produced this drug. Are you sure that you want this to be the last drug produced like this? Is this more important than all other diseases that might be cured at a profit in the future?
If you haven't thought about these questions, maybe you should think about whether you're hearing anything but one side of a complex story.
Liberty uber alles.
Here's an article by Chomsky on the WTO and pharmaceutical companies from a few years back.
Speaking of records, consider what this technology will do for sound when everyone who attends a concert (or just listens to the radio) is able to play back portions of their augmented memory at will. Whether this is in the form of speakers or jacked in more directly to your neurons doesn't change the basic problem. When technology makes augmented memory available it will be a 'killer ap,' and whole industries will be opposed to it, attempting to cripple it by schemes such as forcing watermarking into content and mandating blocking or degrading of that content in memory augmentation devices.
But do we want to enter the new era intentionally crippling ourselves in service to the profits of old business models? Current research shows that the blind can be enabled to see by transforming visual information into aural patterns. Since the process uses a laptop, what's 'seen' can be saved to disk. Should this data be bowlderized if it includes Mickey Mouse on a TV in the background? We could make an exception for the 'disabled,' but 20 years from now not being 'borged with fully capable equipment will be seen as a disability.
The cleanest thing to do is establish a doctrine that experience belongs to the experiencer, and can be freely shared with others. Anything less than this, and we'll be inviting all sorts of corporate and governmental characters to become literally engaged in censoring what's 'inside' our 'borged heads.
___
"with their freedom lost all virtue lose" - Milton
I guess they could choose to get kicked out of their village and starve or get beaten to death...
Unfortunately, the U.S. will no longer support the family planning or education projects of the UN because they promote contraception and sometimes even abortion. Bible-belt congressmen ignore the fact that these projects reduce the number of abortions by reducing the number of unplanned pregnancies.
The bottom line is $1 could be spent on education or $1000 on medication and treatment. I wonder which one is better for the economy.
Oh, and if you think this doesn't affect you because you're ensconced in your anarcho-libertarian techno-lord compound in Northern California, just imagine what will happen when 200,000,000 African children grow up without parents.
Ironic. Polio and smallpox vaccines were developed in academic settings (Dr. Salk at the University of Pittsburg) or hospitals (Albert Sabin at the Children's Hospital) or by independent researchers (Jenner and the smallpox vaccine.) None of them were developed by drug companies looking for a profit, because vaccines are less profitable than treatment.
So, these people have this drug patented, you want it. They produced it because they knew they
:)
could patent it and make good on their investment. But, you say, we should take it. It's for the
good of the people.
If this were only true, you'd have a point, but the govt in the US funds much of this research (and much the corps subsequent profits). But the idea of yours is so religiously believed in face of the facts that when we needed drug we helped develop for anthrax our own govt was afraid to make it for fear of angering the drug corps. This kind of thinking could have lead to a bunch of deaths in the US only to protect the profits of those who didn't fund the development in the first place. Imagine a similar situation where people blocked ambulences during 911 b/c they wanted to charge a toll?
Actually humans have made these cures not corps. Corps aren't real, they are a legal fiction which are used by the rich to protect themselves from the rest of us. It's called limited liablity. For them, not for humans, though.
I don't think there is no incentive to develop vaccines and cures when selling treatment is so lucrative. If you can develop a cure/vaccine that will supplant the existing treatment (by a different company) then you will succeed. What typically seems to happen is that a government will fund research at a university. The researchers will develop a cure/vaccine under the presumption that when they succeed, they will be able to spin off a company to commericalize the technique.
-a
How to rationalize theft.
Not true! Many AIDS victims are born with HIV because of their parent's decisions
Indeed. And they will die. This, my friend, is evolution. You can never permanently hide from it, it is always there, whether you believe in it or not.
AIDS is an equal opportunity killer of people who are stupid about sex.
Do you have any statistics to back that up? If you check that statistics you will find that aids, in descending order of frequency, is:
1) A gay disease
2) an intravenous drug user disease
3) a disease women contract from sleeping with a man belonging to one of the above groups.
Seriously, check the statistics, I dare you.
The power of the first world market steps on the power of the thirld world market.
No it doesn't, they don't have any power. Or money. Or education. They will never, ever deveop any drugs of any importance.
R&D is a small part of a drug's cost. Most of the money goes to jobs unrelated to R&D or production. Millions for the CEO and friends, much corporate welfare, and few pennies in stock dividends.
Maybe 20% of a drug company's revenue goes into R&D, and much less goes to making the drug itself.
For most things, the total monopoly system of a patent is fine. Can't sponge off the success of DVD? So what, get a life or invent something better.
But, for lifesaving drugs, the patent system is ethically conflicted. The drug company should be compensated, and given a *fair* return on their investment. But...
The ethical dilema we have is... How many jobs, how much CEO pay, can be justfied on the back of human death?
If I don't post here ever again, they have come and gotten me for exposing them...
WIPO is behind such ideas as the TRIPS (trade-related aspects of intellectual property rights) agreement within the WTO.
:
:)
Here are some excerpts from various websites on the matter
The TRIPS Agreement has been subject to major international contention due to its stipulation that biological organisms be subject to intellectual property protection.
..Article 27.3 (b) means that Members cannot exclude micro-organisms and non-biological and microbiological processes from patent protection. They must also provide patent or an otherwise (i.e. sui generis) form of intellectual property protection for plant varieties.
Dispute over what the term "sui generis" means: Sui generis is Latin for "of its own kind" and has been interpreted by many countries as an option to provide protection for indigenous and relatively non-commercial knowledges. The U.S. is instead pushing for compliance to the 1991 UPOV convention to be the only sui generis option. The 1991 UPOV convention provides no protection for indigenous and/or relatively non-commercial knowledges.
The imposition of patent rights over biological resources and traditional knowledge unfairly deprives communities of their rights over, and access to, the same resources they have nurtured and conserved over generations.
THE European Parliament has voted to adopt the report of the Parliament's Legal Affairs Committee on the proposed EC directive, modifying European Patent Law to legalise the patenting of animals, plants, human genes, cells and other parts of the human body.
..in the case of patents on human materials, the name and address of the person in question have to be given and the voluntary and informed consent of the person from whom the material has been taken has to be proved.
The new legislation would allow biotechnology companies to go into the Third World's fields and forests, come back home with valuable genetic resources then patent them in Europe.
The Africa Group, in particular, has voiced clear opposition to the patenting of life.
--End of excerpts
We seem to spend a lot of time in here complaining about the RIAA 'nazis' trying to steal away our music, but while that gets us whipped up and keeps us occupied, there are many larger sharks in the pond gobbling away at our future access to seeds, medecines and even whole species. If everything in the world can be bought, then everything can be taken away by 'legal authority'.
I wonder what the price on life will be. If your entire genetic identity can be voluntarily given away, how long will it be until all of the homeless, the poor and the desperate prostitute their DNA to the highest bidder ? It also makes me wonder what happens to the child born to two parents who have sold their code.
Perhaps like the RIAA, once the multinationals have bought enough people, they will begin to push for further control of their patented good. Performance rights ? Royalties ? Complete and pervasive knowledge of where the person is and what they are doing at all times through a satellite controlled implant ?
Forget Orwell, 1984 was almost two decades ago now. We have the WTO!
About half is payed for up front. And things like lobbying, FDA approval, advertising, etc are probably included in the cost reported here from the industry side of things. The last paragraph is also pretty interesting. "Probably they paid taxes." Well guess what, a lot of corporations don't pay any tax. Paul O'Neill wants to extend that to every corporation.
PS - "Marxist" is a pretty unintelligent insult.
Ceci n'est pas un post
Ok, how do you sort out the honest ones then? You're in a village in africa, and you are going to demand your partner get tested for something you barely know what it is?
How many people with AIDS do you think are going to be totally honest about it, again, in a country where AIDS runs rampant? How many are even going to know?
And, yes, I'm sure you have a choice about having sex or not when your family marries you off to someone. You can always say no and get beaten instead.
It's quite different in the western world, where you can actually demand a test before getting into a relationship. Not that the honesty thing is very common tho...
*sigh*
Some people are just too stupid for words.
Well maybe this whole position of producing cures and treatments as a side-effect of someone's plan to make money is fundamentally flawed...
Friend, using an Objectivist web magazine as a resource is the epitomy of stupidity. The Cult of Rand is far worse than the cult of Marx.
Ceci n'est pas un post
The cost of developing the drugs isn't just cost of development. Even worse, the 20 year (IIRC) patent starts ticking when you enter testing with the FDA, which can take an ungodly amount of time testing the drug. You're not making dime one until the FDA approves it.
After that, you've got a limited amount of time to recoup your development and testing costs, plus trying to make a profit, plus covering future development, plus making up for failed drug development efforts, plus cost of capital over the development period.
Given a $50M (number pulled out of my butt) plant, you've got 50M * (1+costOfCapital) ^ (yearsInDevelopment) to recover, which isn't trivial, and I'll bet $50M is chump change in that industry.
Once generics enter the market, you're toast because of the aforementioned low production costs, so you've got to charge out the wazoo during your exclusive patent period to stick around. Note what happens to stock prices of drug companies when a drug either gets approved or moves to a different stage of testing. Analysts know what they're doing in that regard. I mean, they're not VCs.
Irrespective, I would suggest drug prices ARE hysterically overwrought, but there might be some cause for that.
ceci n'est pas un sig.
AIDS is predominantly heterosexual in Africa, where the vast majority of cases are found.
I've yet to see any evidence of a heterosexual AIDs epidemic.
You seem to have missed the point of this article, which was that people in poor countries could not afford patented drugs. The vast majority of AIDS patients are heterosexual people from Sub-Sahara Africa. The first-world gay population is rather insignificant compared to this.
I'm not a professional troller, at most times I'm making my money with mindcontrol and censorship. Trolling is merely a hobby for me. But the spreading of pagewidening forces me to make some comments, for PWP/PLPs are covering the trolling threats more and more lately.
My opinion is that Klerck is obsolete.
Why ?
Klerck is a annoying, hobbiest troll who defies all principles of modern troll design.
- Klerck is tied to a single platform:
his PWPs are only affecting Internet Explorer users.
It's nearly impossible to port is PWPs to other platforms.
- Klerck doesn't scale.
He can only troll a very limited number of message boards.
- He uses an old, monolitic approach to crapflooding.
Most troll scientists regonize that modern crapfloods
should use an modular, mirco-PWP approach.
- Multithreaded crapflooding is just a performance hack.
While you can some flooding speed this just shadows the
architectural flaws of his crapflooding model.
I'm not totally unhappy about his PWPs, because we would just loose all trolls which want to transform modern trolling into the old insult spamming method. But all trolls who want to follow modern trolling principles should just ditch PWPs and stay away from Klerck and trollaxor.com.-- A.T.
The contest was announced on Slashdot. Slashdot rejected two reminder stories from me one month and one week before it closed. Despite all the sound and fury in this forum and elsewhere, it received only fifty-some submissions. Two of them were mine.
If this is all we care about IP, we've already lost. Son of SSSCA will slip through as amendments, and we'll all be buying our hardware from Hilary Rosen.
You disagree? Did you submit an essay? Did you? I didn't think so.
If you were blocking sigs, you wouldn't have to read this.