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."
It's not now, but if we don't do something about it, it will become so.
"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
These people aren't buying them in the first place. Do you seriously think anyone would lose any money by saving these poor people's lives?
This is one of the most despicable examples of capitalistic selfishness I have ever seen, because unlike most debates, where it is capitalists arguing against life and for profits, here they are arguing against life and just for some abstract economic morality. It shows the sheer insanity of Ayn Rand reading pyschopaths who care *nothing* for any fellow humans beings. It is absolutely sickening.
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
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.
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?
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?
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
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 |
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.
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
Ok hows this: Have you splurged on yourself lately. Maybe bought a new pair of shoes when the old pair would have got you around for a while longer. Or maybe eaten out when you could have eaten at home. You could have sent that money overseas to help buy that medicine. Did you put your own selfish greed and avarice over people - causing deaths and pain?
It is a much more complex issue then you make it out to be and easy to center the problem on evil and heartless corporations.
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.