Slashdot Mirror
How Intellectual Property Reinforces Inequality
An anonymous reader writes "Here is an article by Dr.Joe Stiglitz on how intellectual property reinforces inequality by allowing patent owners to seek rent (aka license / sue) instead of delivering goods to the society. From the article: 'At first glance, the case, Association for Molecular Pathology v. Myriad Genetics, might seem like scientific arcana: the court ruled, unanimously, that human genes cannot be patented, though synthetic DNA, created in the laboratory, can be. But the real stakes were much higher, and the issues much more fundamental, than is commonly understood. The case was a battle between those who would privatize good health, making it a privilege to be enjoyed in proportion to wealth, and those who see it as a right for all — and a central component of a fair society and well-functioning economy. Even more deeply, it was about the way inequality is shaping our politics, legal institutions and the health of our population.'"
That's common to all monopolies in general: by disallowing newcomers and competition, they serve no purpose but feeding whatever company/cartel holds that monopoly. And governments, instead of disrupting them, take more and more bribes to allow creating even more monopolies...
The creatures outside looked from Alt-Right to Antifa; but already it was impossible to say which was which.
yes, the 'life is a race' concept. I heard of that. Nice concept. if everybody started at the same point (and not: some near the finish pole and others without legs outside the stadium)
Yes, I'm left. You have a problem with that?
I'm not a fan of patents but Mr. Stiglitz's central argument is silly unless this is a pitch to Marxists or whatever-Richard-Stallman-is types. Landlords can hold arbitrary amounts of property and charge rent on all of them... isn't that an accepted part of our society?
I've tried making that argument, but most people won't really care until it becomes a talking point beaten to death by demagogues on TV. Also, I cringed a bit when I read that summary, because every phrase screams "leftist academic". That's one of the quickest and easiest ways to get dismissed by moderates and center-right allies.
I am fairly sure that it is you that doesn't understand the issue. The patent was for knowledge that many others would have discovered in short order anyway - because they patented a section of the actual human genome. They were perhaps that first to discover its relationship to a type of cancer, or perhaps they were only the first to hit upon the idea to try and patent the human genome. The underlying technology - the test they developed - is fully patentable. But not the human genome itself.
The patent system is to preserve the rights of inventors, not to keep knowledge from disseminating. And accusing Joseph Stiglitz of not understanding the purpose of patents should have gotten +1 funny and +1 flamebait
yes, the 'life is a race' concept. I heard of that. Nice concept. if everybody started at the same point (and not: some near the finish pole and others without legs outside the stadium)
That's the second part: "Life isn't fair".
Ah, but all people should be equally valued in the eyes of the law. That's the point. Laws should not favor the rich over the poor, or one ethnicity over another. While one person may be born into wealth, and their possession of it, therefore a given, another person born into poverty should not be barred from obtaining wealth through hard work and careful planning. When laws exist that effectively preclude the poor from gaining wealth, we now have inequality in the law, and that is what the article describes.
Learning about brewing beer, by brewing beer.
So (in cases other than this DNA one) a company spending billions on research for something and then making a basic effort to prevent bottom-feeding generic companies and foreigners from ripping off their work with zero investment in the initial research causes Earth's elite population to move to an exclusive space station orbiting Earth called Elysium? I think this article is a little overblown, as is my hyperbolic oversimplification of it.
The real issue here is stupid patents. People patenting round corners and touch to open and the wheel or whatever other stupidity the patent office lets pass by. Those pretty much result in extortion to other companies. But then you've got Dungeons and Dragons. The company invents something that cost a fortune to develop with staff time, spell checking, math, balancing, etc. Someone shouldn't be able to rip it off freely and resell it or give it away just because it's intellectual property and not "real" property. Some copyrights and patents reflect actual value and some are made up BS to go around suing people over. THAT is what needs to be fixed. Depriving the poor masses of their right to D&D information by lording it over them with patents and copyrights is a completely made up fantasy though (pun intended).
Your logical mistake is equalling a "characteristics of life", inequality, with evolution.
Just because A has C and B has C, does not mean that A is B.
The problem is logical failure.
Now, if someone is truly better than someone else, clearly they "deserve" a bit more. However, nobody "deserves" to treat other human beings as slaves, or getting rich from their diseases when it can be cured by a simple cure. Modern soceity is built on the foundation of "equality", that all people are "equal".
It's a logical mistake to think "equality" means everyone is or should be the same.
It means everyone should be given equal chances and opportunities in life, as much as possible.
Especially those who don't believe in reincarnation should be adamant about how important equality is, both for each individual, to have a chance to rise up beyond one's station, but also for society. All will benefit from the most efficient and compassionate citizens. On the other end of the scale you have the cruel psychopath criminals destroying everything for their own short-term gains.
his articles are copyrighted.
The problem with IP today is the complete lack of reasonable limits on who can make money from IP and for how long.
It's is fundamentally unfair to the world to expect unlimited and life-long (or longer) income from your IP (or even worse, from someone else's IP to which you have acquired the 'rights').
IP is a human mental construct that was brought into being to address fairness. The pendulum has swung way too far.
How short-sighted can someone be? If a landlord couldn't collect rent, they wouldn't provide an apartment for a renter to live in. Innovation doesn't "just happen". It happens because people expect to profit from their investment of time and effort.
So what if you have to pay a royalty? If it's too much, you don't have to take advantage of the innovation. At least you have a choice, which you wouldn't otherwise.
Moreover, the newest innovation means the older stuff becomes cheaper. An old iPhone may have been too expensive for you in the past, but you can pick one up for nearly free now. And the same thing will happen to current products when the next generation comes out. This isn't just true of phones, but lots of other things like cars, medicine, computers, etc.
So if society is going to confiscate intellectual property for the good of the whole.. is it going to compensate those who spent millions iventing it. or subsidize those who in process? As hard as it may be for some of you to beleive.. these people and companies invested A LOT of time and money into these products.
Amazingly confused.
Your first paragraph directlt contradicts your second.
Newton stood on the shoulders of giants because he didn't have to pay some mob of rent-seekers for the priviledge.
Watch this Heartland Institute video
Except copyright and patent holders do tend to try to screw themselves quite often. They wanted to stop the VCR despite the gold mine it turned out to be, as well as many other technological processes. Allegedly, P.L. Robertson screwed himself out of the US market despite having a superior product because he refused to license his screw technology due to a bad business deal in England, and thus lost out to the inferior Phillips head.
This is my signature. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
As for a “lot of inequity” - we should not live in a winner takes all, class bound gilded society – that takes away the incentive for hard work.
The paradox of extremes. In a communistic society, there's no reason to work hard because your can get the same rewards without exertion. In what we simplistically call a "capitalistic" society there's no reason to work hard because the people who got there first will deny you the benefits anyway.
I use quotes around "capitalistic" because the term is routinely expanded to include aspects of business and philosophy that have nothing to do with how you raise and use capital.
Am I the only one who likes inequality? Not to the extend that it exists today, but it's pretty much the only thing that makes most folks to get out of bed in the morning: the hope that they'll be better off than those that skip the "getting out of bed and going to work" part. That's why inventors invent, researchers research, directors direct, actors act, writers write, software engineers code, and folks at Boeing make airplanes and space ships. What would be their motivation if no matter what they did, they'd still be "equal" to someone who sits on his ass all day and does nothing? There are not one but several large scale examples that equality does not work. Russia, pre-capitalism China just the two largest ones. And not working was a crime in those countries, punishable by jail time.
Why must everything be the lowest common denominator?
If I start with nothing, work hard, and generate superior r results I get nothing?
the part where hard work generates results is nice. in reality though, luck is much more important than all other factors.
Yes, I'm left. You have a problem with that?
The paradox of extremes. In a communistic society, there's no reason to work hard because your can get the same rewards without exertion. In what we simplistically call a "capitalistic" society there's no reason to work hard because the people who got there first will deny you the benefits anyway.
I'll call BS on your simplistic view of capitalism. In my 54 years, I've met very few people that worked hard and were unsuccessful. There have been exceptions, and usually it was because they had made poor choices in the areas they worked. Working hard and smart is key, and stop blaming society if you have a rough time for a while. Shit happens to everyone, losers whine, winners work harder.
Just another day in Paradise
I am not saying that there is not a lot of effort still left to do
Myriad spent about $500 million on the "effort still left to do" by the way.
Pharmaceuticals are even more expensive because of the massive cost of FDA testing.
You are correct - university labs tend to create the basic knowledge, but without that intellectual property right existing to be licensed, Pharma companies would not invest in the testing and manufacture of the drug.
Much of what Myriad owned in IP on BRCA testing came from the owner's lab at the University of Utah, with research money coming from Eli Lilly.
But then, there is the matter of how many people you've met, and how diverse their walks of life are. If you are born into a family known for its success, you are likely to grow up around other children from families that are also known for success. Furthermore, those children are taught to believe that their success is due purely to their own "hard work". They don't actually have to work hard because they are taught how to use their family's advantages such as inheritance and connections with the other families known for success. Utilizing that knowledge is furthermore seen as the end all and be all of "hard work", when in fact it doesn't even begin to compare to the difficulty of the work those not similarly advantaged have to do just to survive much less be successful. Furthermore, those families tend to stick together into adulthood so these notions are all constantly reinforced in addition to your notion that practically everyone you met that "worked hard" were successful. It becomes a tautology. Just how many people have you met that haven't "worked hard" anyways?
Life isn't fair
but society should be.
the preceding comment is my own and in no way reflects the opinion of the Joint Chiefs of Staff