Slashdot Mirror
Intellectual Property Rights: The Quiet Killer of Rio+20
ericjones12398 writes "Richard Phillips, president of the Intellectual Property Owners Association, sent a powerful message to Washington the day before the Rio+20 UN Conference on Sustainable Development regarding the U.S. intellectual property community's stance on sharing IPR with developing nations. Philips argued any language included in the Rio+20 final declaration compromising the existing IP regime would discourage investment and destroy trade secrets. 'Any references to technology transfer should be clearly qualified and conditioned to include only voluntary transfer of IPR on mutually agreed terms.' The IPO has no interest in helping developing countries transition to a more sustainable economy if it means sacrificing valuable IPR. And the IPO's chilly message set the tone for what many pundits and participants considered a disappointing Rio+20 conference yielding few substantive results."
The IPO has no interest in helping developing countries transition to a more sustainable economy if it means sacrificing valuable IPR.
In other stunning news, the rich still have it better than the poor, politicians don't have the best interests of their citizens at heart, and 2013 won't be the "Year of Linux."
Since when has anyone WITH that much valuable IP ever given it up freely? Oh sure, here and there, a token gesture. But does anyone really expect Monsanto or Intel to give up their *entire business model* and *everything that makes them money* tomorrow because some third-world country is poor? Not likely.
And to be brutally honest, how is it really fair to ask them to? If they paid for the R&D, why should someone else be entitled to it without paying a cent? Is it some first-world tech company's fault that your country is poor, that your government is too corrupt to invest in its infrastructure instead of padding El-Presidente's pockets, that your education system is a joke? Sure it would be a great charitable gesture for them to give it to you at a big discount, but that hardly gives you the right to *demand* it. You're certainly not entitled to it just because you're poor. And it probably wouldn't even do you any good, in the long term anyway, unless you deal with the underlying problems in your country that put you in poverty to begin with (El Presidente will just stuff his pockets deeper with any new money too).
What political party do you join when you don't like Bible-thumpers *or* hippies?
Fortunately, the laws that magically make "intellectual property" "exist" are national laws.
Any poor country can create such things, or not, as it chooses.
Monsanto and Intel don't really have any choice as to whether or not their monopoly rights exist in a given country.
That's up to the country.
Reading the MSM I got the impression I'm was the only person in the world expecting the conference to fail. I always assumed that was because MSM is stupid, but came-on, here too?
Why would anybody expect any agreement? Wasn't Kyoto enough to show that nobody wants to commit, and everybody wants everybody else to? There is no more easy stuff to do for the environment (like banning CFCs), nobody will reach an agreement on anything hard. Claiming the failure is due to any cause, but lack of commitment is a lie.
Rethinking email
The problem TFA specifically addresses is the problem of pollution and "green" technology. The developed world, understandably, has done most of the research in that field. What the IPO is basically saying is they don't give a shit if the developing world gets clean technology or not. That severely hampers the ability of developing nations to control pollution and CO2 emissions, even if they want to, which can have a global impact down the line on the entire planet. And that is frankly the problem, because it would mean the short-term selfishness of the corporations (in and of itself actually understandable and acceptable, in many ways: they're in it for the profit, after all) will, in the long term, do tremendous damage to the planet (which is not acceptable).
Not to mention it is in the best interest of the world for undeveloped countries to develop stably, not just for pollution concerns. An unsustainable but otherwise relatively developed country is a recipe for World War III, in the long run. Possibly even nuclear war, if they are developed enough and desperate enough.
"None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license." --John Milton
That's some mighty industrious reasoning you got there, son.
Would you like a slice of toast?
Any poor country can create such things, or not, as it chooses.
But just think - if a small third-world company started manufacturing, say drugs that the local people who live on a dollar a day need, earning perhaps a trivial profit, it would be the end of the 1st world countries!
As if the idea weren't already impeding the progress of the arts and useful sciences. Because a company like Apple would never use such a system to try to band the competition from the marketplace or anything...
My God, it's Full of Source!
OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
Big picture ideas, fail when details get in the way, and people are unable to find an appropriate compromise, and take your opponents view into account.
For Example... Lets simplify the US tax plan, and get rid of all those loopholes that the 1 percent use to get off tax free. ....
Well what about deductions for charity?
How about investing in your retirement?
Well you have kids?
You shortly find the simple idea of making the Tax Plan easy and fair quickly comes up with a lot of details that you find, that there are not easy answers too.
Or lets go to the right... Lets reduce government services, that keeps all our taxes high.
How about military, can we reduce that?
What about funding R&D?
Incubators for new business ideas?
Road, and Infrastructure....
Paraphrasing Douglas Adams. To summarize the summery of the summary; people are a problem.
With the exception of the people who grew up with a golden spoon in their mouth. Most of the successful people in the United States and the World usually got there with Hard Work, personal sacrifice, and taking risks. They choose a lot of personal trade offs to get in that position. They won't freely give it up.
If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
...that the the IPO’s "chilly message" set the tone for anything at Rio +20. It was doomed from the start and everyone involved knew it.
One look at the drafts of the ridiculous "The Future We Want" document is sufficient to explain the failure of Rio +20. No "chilly message" from IP owners is required.
In times of universal deceit, telling the truth gets you modded -1 Troll
The content Mafia has invented a model, that allows them, to take the works of others (the actual creatives) via a adhesion contract, and make money on every worthless copy, without moving a single finger. It's fraud. Plain and simple.
And for those who don't fall for the bullshit, they have set up a racketeering scheme, where they scaremonger people into not going to court and paying money, because they know exactly that in court, they wouldn't stand a chance, because they have as much proof as that one "lawyer" in Idiocracy.
Not to forget, that this industry is ridiculously tiny, and only can keep up its ego through massive overinflated self-importance. (Comparison: The whole global music industry has the same revenue, as a single bankrupt German construction company [Holzwinkel]. The whole German music industry has one quarter of the revenue of the municipal transportation services of a 1 million people city. That's *nothing*!)
Yet they want to destroy our entire society to keep up their insane delusions. Even though their fantasies aren't even physically possible, unless you think putting DRM (you know: that thing that by definition can’t work) in every single brain and device is somehow realistically doable and would work too.
Come on guys! We have to push against a bunch of madmen with extreme (often drug-inflated) egos! We can't just push normally. We have to push *harder*!
it is a valid argument, to note, that the reason Germany got the Nazis was not the few crazies. It was the whole nation not doing much against it, and falling for the propaganda!
(Hell, I've seen loads of people even here already use their bullshit propaganda terms like "intellectual property", or even *defend* those criminals! That's *completely* and *utterly* unacceptable!)
Except that when 3rd world countries don't do what they are told, they are hit with economic sanctions, their leaders are demonised in the world media, and in extreme cases they are invaded, bombed or both. The poverty in the third world is manufactured, not in the sense that it wasn't there before and someone created it, but in the sense that it would have naturally faded away by now if powerful rich nations weren't working their asses of to perpetuate it. Cuba is a nice example, they got the sanctions for having strong welfare, education and medical policies designed to bring them up to first world status. First they got crippling sanctions, and although these succeeded in keeping them poor, it didn't make them give up their system. Then they got the invasions.
the expected business model of the have-nots is to steal and cheat their way into international economic solidity?
that's not fair! -- you're copying Wall Street bankers! quit it!
if this is supposed to be a new economy, how come they still want my old fashioned money?
The myopia and greed really makes them no better than that other special interest group determined to crimincally enrich themselves at the expense of everybody and everything else: the bankers.
AGW is the consensus view of an overwhelming number of climatologists and researchers in related fields. As I always say, the Universe doesn't give a fuck about the Third World, about your particular favorite socio-economic philosophical stance, about whether gas is cheap or expensive. If AGW is happening, your political leanings mean absolutely fucking nothing.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
The thing is when we were a basically a 3rd world nation, right after we became a nation we ripped off everyone's IP.
Without that step you can never really get to a point at which you can create a workable economy.
I prefer the Telvanni/Shadowruner moral code. If you're good enough to steal it, you've earned it.
Which is the current moral code in those 3rd-world countries, and (if you understand economics) precisely the reason why they are poor.
Without strong property rights, poverty is the inevitable result.
In times of universal deceit, telling the truth gets you modded -1 Troll
Ah, ideology is always just a tall, cool drink of water, isn't it? Refreshing! New ideas!
This is a complete falsehood.
I've got to love it. The deniers either deny there is a consensus, or use the consensus to claim a flaw.
Make no mistake. The vast majority of climatologists accept AGW, and the above poster is a lying sack of shit.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
We kept the rest of the third world impoverished by trading with them (or something).
We kept Cuba impoverished by not trading with them (or something).
When your axiom is 'The poverty in the third world is manufactured' you twist everything to support that view.
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
You make a Stradivarius the same way you make any other high quality violin, as shown by skilled musicians failing to distinguish them from modern replicas in blind tests.
Lots of tests have been done, here's a good one:
http://www.pnas.org/content/109/3/760
See also:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stradivarius#Comparisons_in_sound_quality
No, it wouldn't be the end of patent holders, as long as those developing countries help their local people and do not export any of their production. For example http://science.slashdot.org/story/12/03/13/1716206/indian-govt-uses-special-powers-to-slash-cancer-drug-price-by-97 would work if India keeps all production inside their borders.
What the IP holders fear (and rightly so) is that these countries will use the technology not only to help their people, but to supplant their benefactors in the future. I think a balance can be worked out with technology transfers based on a period of export restriction for the recipient country.
your thin skin doesn't make me a troll
Cuba is a bad example since the reason for their sanctions has absolutely nothing to do with what you said.
The reason for the sanctions is that the US paid for a revolution and then the people of Cuba had the gall to go communist.
Don't know something? Look it up. Still don't know? Then ask.
The poverty in the third world is manufactured, not in the sense that it wasn't there before and someone created it, but in the sense that it would have naturally faded away by now if powerful rich nations weren't working their asses of to perpetuate it. Cuba is a nice example, they got the sanctions for having strong welfare, education and medical policies designed to bring them up to first world status.
Bullshit.
Poverty in the third world is manufactured by the corrupt, miserable leadership of the third world.
To name some examples of countries that *rapidly* transitioned (or are on an incredible upswing) from the third world to the first world in the 20th century: Japan, China, Singapore, Spain, South Korea, South Africa, India, Sri Lanka, Chile, Thailand, Malaysia, Indonesia, Turkey, and Brazil.
That's just off the top of my head.
WhiteWolf666 an exBush supporter. All you new-school,compassionate,save the children Republicans can rot in hell
I'm pretty sure John Nash got a Nobel Prize for pointing out exactly this.
Peter predicted that you would "deliberately forget" creation 2000 years ago...
I can't tell if you are trying to be funny or not, but the US national anthem is the "Star Spangled Banner." The lyrics are from a poem by Francis Scott Key. These lyrics, written during the War of 1812, were eventually matched to the English drinking song "To Anacreon in Heaven."
On the other hand the English (UK) don't have an official national anthem. "God Save the King/Queen" is probably the closest approximation. While the origin of the lyrics and tune are not known, it probably dates back to the 17th century and is likely based on church music of the time. The tune is the same as that used in "America" (i.e. the song beginning "My country, 'tis of thee..."), which may explain your apparent confusion.
Rhapsody in Numbers
We don't trade with them as much as bribe their leaders to allow western companies to shuttle natural resources out of the country for ridiculously low prices. When leaders try to nationalize oil/banana/ore production, they are suddenly branded dictators/communists (see Venezuela, Guatemala, Congo, etc).
They make more money than me. Therefore, they are too rich and their wealth should be re-distributed, preferably to groups that include me.
This sounds so much like the slogan of the "Rio+20 Summit", your post should probably be modded Redundant.
"Somebody has to do something. It's just incredibly pathetic it has to be us."
--- Jerry Garcia
"....are festering cesspools of corruption, nepotism and cronyism, and don't see how throwing a bunch of resources at the problem is going to do anything except give the leaders more to pillage from their countries."
What, like the USA is any different?
Good example. What's the the result of throwing more resources at it? More corruption, more tyranny, and more asking for more resources. Obviously, that method is not just a complete failure, but is proven to exacerbate the problem.
"Somebody has to do something. It's just incredibly pathetic it has to be us."
--- Jerry Garcia
A few million in sugar plantations, certainly not 'billions' (at least not in 1957 dollars), even if you were to include the Mafia's casinos. Almost everything that was nationalized belonged to rich Cubanos (many of whom already lived in Miami). While the initial sactions may have been because they were godless commies, by the time of Ronnie Raygun the reason had changed to a fear that if Cuba was allowed to survive and succeed they would provide a "bad" example to the Central American banana republics. Since the bloodbath of the 1980s ensured that freedom and actual self-rule would never be allowed in Central America, today the only reason seems to be inertia.
"Think about how stupid the average person is. Now, realise that half of them are dumber than that." - George Carlin
I saw that article and took the "test." I picked out the Strad right away - the performer couldn't make the lower passages on the G string sound as consistent and strong. I doubt they had many classically trained violinists listen to the excerpts (a bassoonist or percussionist probably doesn't spend much time listening to solo violin music.) I'm sure not all strads are up to the same quality, but there are real reasons Strads and Guaneri violins are in such demand - not just because they're not being replaced, and not just because of the prestige.
Although I'm not a violinist, what I've been told by classical violinists who've had the opportunity to play a strad: it's hard to make a bad sound on the instrument - tone production is easier.
Believe it or not, a lower quality instrument (violin or otherwise) may not suitable for playing certain pieces. Violins and pianos are great examples of this. I overheard a couple of violinists playing the opening page of the Scherzo from Schumann's second symphony (recording and sheet music ). Both violinists played it on a $30k violin and $40k violin. Neither was able to get the passage clear (at full tempo) on the $30k violin, but both could play it easily on the $40k violin. Both violinists were conservatory trained and about equal skill level. That's not to say that instruments are all priced perfectly, but there is something to higher quality instruments being easier to play. Who knows about the luthiers of today? I certainly hope some are producing the strads of tomorrow, but it might not be clear for a century or two.
Given the choice, do you think the average developer would rather work on a netbook or a high end laptop? Both could probably get the job done, but compiling would take longer and everything else would likely take longer.