It is only in the presence of copyright that there is any need to prevent obfuscation as a means of circumventing the GPL's requirement that published derivatives are also subject to the GPL.
This is a non sequitur. This implies that no one would want to not publish their source code were it not for copyright law. You have shown no evidence. Nor have you presented an argument for this position. All this inspite of the fact that I have presented both the means and the motive for a significant number of people to keep their code secret without the copyright law. What's more, you appear to have an irrational belief that the majority of closed-source developers would keep on developing code, only they would magically decide to publish their source code too instead making their binaries obscure and encrypted and trying to find ways to force people to pay.
Consider, for instance, that I could take a GPL project, like, say, Mozilla and improve it by 300%, then sell the software as a service through a good remote terminal service like RDP/Citrix/etc. Even in your convoluted idea of natural law you would have no chance to copy my work or modify it (unless you accept the notion that it is both possible and morally permissible to hack my server to give you the level of access you need). Thus in absence of copyright I would still have plenty of incentive to develop original closed source goods and, because of the removal of copyright law, I would be free to make and sell-as-service improved derivative versions of GPL products (and be legally free to keep the code closed).
The GPL is only effective against those who stubbornly believe in copyright and patents.
Against? I believe in IP and I believe GPL because of it. To the contrary, I think that open source and closed source complement each other. Each has their strengths and weaknesses (though, open source, not being able to sustain most development activities, is and will remain a minority). My gripe against GPL is only that its increasing and unpredictable radicalness hurts the open source movement itself and, to small small extent, discourages code re-use in the non-GPL world. The notion that you're going to force, say, a game developer to adopt GPL so that they might exploit the code base ignores the fact that this same license also bars them the ability to recover their sunk costs and make a reasonable profit (service is not an answer for everything... most things infact).
Moreover, given the arrival of the instantaneous diffusion device known as the Internet, they are also ineffective.
I disagree. The internet raises new concerns, yes, but many if not most of these means to pirate also have critical chokepoints (ISPs, software makers, servers, trusted computing, etc). One need not stamp out every last act to be successful. A ~4MB music file might be one of the easier targets for pirates, but the same cannot be said for drugs, engineering designs, much software, etc. What's more, the Internet also makes possible wholly new forms of DRM (remote key servers, constant update/changing of software, etc) and content protection (like running software as a service, like gmail or as an app over a remote terminal).
One might also make similar arguments, like what you make, but for pedophiles and child molesters thanks to the increasingly low barriers between sickos and naive children. Does this mean the law should stand still and fail to adapt? I don't think so. Most educated members of society recognize the critical value of IP in the modern economy and will tend to support the evolving legal and even technical system to support rights.
However, these incentives are unethical
How, pray tell, is it "unethical" if I have no obligation to share in the first place? How is it any different than my imposing a contract on you in exchange
You Are Not A Laywer. So please stop being the tool for this lawyer and his celebrity seeking habits (what is this, the 2nd article published this week from this guy?).
The issue du jour is about antitrust concerns for the plaintiff: if they communicate specific pricing to each other in any way they might be accused of price fixing. It may or may not be valid (and I'm sure it's a complicated legal matter). Seeing as how almost no one here has studied law and can offer intelligent commentary on this latest development, why don't you leave it up for the judge to decide? I also don't think the ~70 cents estimate is new knowledge here. In short, there's no news for slashdot here.
The liberty the GPL attempts to restore is nothing more nor less than the liberty suspended by copyright, patents and the DMCA.
Not quite. My "right" to selectively publish my binary code and choose not to release my source code (or to simply delete it, post-compile) does not depend on any personal claim to copyright, patents, or protections brought by the DMCA (you might argue you could legally reverse engineer it without this, but it would not give you source code and it would certainly not be coming from me). To the contrary, the only thing compelling me to continuously release my source code that are derivative of GPL software is copyright law itself. In absence of copyright law, anyone may be free to try to copy or reverse-engineer my software if they can get their hands on the binary, but this does not mean that they would necessarily succeed in either using my product for free (esp. if run as a service or with DRM on some obscure platform) or (especially) in obtaining the source so that they could make their own modifications.
I find it rather amusing how the most vociferous advocates gloss over this fact. If we were to completely reverse all laws pertaining to IP, the GPL itself would be meaningless and unenforcable: anyone could legally rerelease any GPL code as they see fit: with highly obscure, with DRM, as plain old closed-source software, as a trade-secret service, and so on.
I respect the right of IP creators to set the terms by which their contributions may be used: this specifically includes the right of RMS and his loyal followers to set fairly arbitrary license terms on the stuff they contribute. This does not, however, mean that they are right to constantly change the terms and pull the rug out from under people. Nor does it mean that many open source developers share their views just because some of the more zealous are able to slip their new license in.
We are talking about a reversion to the liberty we had a hundred or so years ago before printers thought it might be a good idea if there was a gentleman's agreement not to reprint each other's publications.
Copyright and patent law was promulgated in the US Constitution more than 218 years ago.
Read Article I, Section 8, Clause 8: Congess shall have the power...
"To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries."... and England recognized copyright as early as almost 300 years ago with the Statute of Anne.
And who is "we" and what "liberty" did "we" have? Even before the Statute of Anne was passed, the English monarchs granted monopoly rights to publishers and each publisher had an exclusive right to their own works... which in turn directly compensated the authors with a lump sum payment for publication (that sum, however, would not be worth much if the publisher had no exclusivity). This system arguably created incentives to publish. Where is evidence of great literary activity before and outside of such frameworks... prior to ~1410 (given that there really was not printing, as such, and that most people were likely illiterate)?
Just because you can make money by suspending the public's liberty and selling it back doesn't make it an ethically sound thing to do.
I disagree. I do not believe the public has a fundamental right to the fruit of my labor, whether intellectual or physical. If I create and do not share with you, you're none the poorer than if I had not shared it in the first place. The mere fact that you can steal my work without compensating me as per contract does not make it right, anymore than your potential ability steal physical property from me makes it right. Yeah, I know that Jefferson and some others took a different view (my flame is not diminished if you light from mi
Well open source in and of itself is a radical thing. I for one am proud of it's radical heritage and it's radical future.
Linus Torvalds and others, who have arguably done the most in practical terms to promote openness, do not necessarily share this radical view.
Open source was intended to prevent you (proprietary software developer) form locking me (the people who use the software) out of the source code. It's designed to help me first and foremost and the fact that you are pissed at it means it's working.
Again, many of its contributors may not share this same idea. If I create a closed-source application that merely links to a GPL library (not modifies it) so that I can interface with the platform, I fail to see how you can argue that I am "taking" code from you. This philosophy is a little contradictory to say the least. Furthermore, the point is that this was not part of GPL v1 -- so where is the "design"? Where is the document that I can read? What if the next part of the "design" is that any data contained within an GPL database must also be disclosed?
On another note your irritation is a powerful testemant to the power of open source and to the quality of the GPLed code on the market.
It is testament to the fact that reasonable people, such as myself, see the value in sharing some code (like in the case of Linux and other such common platforms). In this specific instance, the attraction is not to have to write my own data storage engine. MySQL was attractive because: of its nominal price, the (falsely) perceived stability (of the project/on-going support), and potentially its future scalability (long term plans). [Not because it is the best product on the market for technical merits -- MSSQL and Oracle are superior in many ways]. However, the actual price imposed on me as a developer, due to future threats imposed by zealots like yourself (if MySQL shows signs of caving at least), will likely force me to choose Postgresql or a commercial engine -- which, at the end of the day, are likely to be appreciably superior. And, as a side note, I will likely avoid making any GPL code contributions in the future, in favor of artistic-style licenses or just keeping it closed, as the GPL crowd is turning increasingly radical and away from pragmatic concerns. If I make a contribution under a particular licensing scheme, I want that licensing scheme to remain largely the same or, at the very least, evolve in a predictable and pragmatic direction.
This issue is much broader than just my rights as a developer with commercial interests. When opensource zealots can't restrain themselves from muddling with the licensing of existing and critical projects. Even if these purges just limit themselves to anything directly relating to copyright, patents, trade-secret, etc -- many more people, companies, and applications may find themselves at the other end of this unpredictable and constantly changing license.
Caveat Emptor.... or, as saying goes (paraphrased)...
Somehow, when a company capitalizes on the "commercial" confusion, it doesn't surprise me at all that they would make this "error" (I don't think it's accidental, I mean to suggest they are faking a confusion, as in the "commercial" term, in order to forbid anyone from making a GPL V3 fork of MySQL)
The "commercial" term "confusion" they capitalize upon make many think that in order to make a commercial application they would have to get the proprietary version of MySQL.
That, of course, makes no sense at all. The FSF explains it very succintly, and David Wheeler quite recently explained it in a very detailed manner.
I disagree. MySQL's information on their licensing is actually pretty clear. They state that "commercial" refers to the ability not to have to contend with the restrictions that the GPL (v2+) imposes and gives you MySQL provided support. While they may not explicitly state that one might actually create a commercial product around MySQL without the commercial license (and thus be compelled to release under the GPL), their explanation does not make it seem like this could not be true either. Most people with commercial intentions, that is to say businesses which are not already familiar with the GPL's restrictions, do not expect to use the GPL-compatible business models (e.g., release code and pray to make money in support) and those that know what it is or believe in it, I would argue, would understand the rights and limitions bestowed upon them by GPL itself before they even talk to MySQL. What's more, I don't believe that the FSF's explanation is any more clear or concise. The use of the word "commercial" to refer to a GPL-licensed product should at least come with a major caveat as it is near-impossible to sell more than the first copy of the product itself under GPL (under terms that is likely to be acceptable to Stallman and his cohorts)--thus the term commercial is perhaps best applied to the service offering itself.
In any event, you can read my longer post on this article (a related topic).
I believe that changing licenses on users midstream is the greater threat to users and, perhaps, to the movement itself (by alienating its users). Rather than re-typing or pasting everything again, you can read my prior comment on this article.
Given the GPLv3 (however it's written) cannot reduce the liberty provided by the GPLv2, one can only imagine that those who cross out "or later" are fearful that the public may be given more liberty by the GPLv3 than they'd prefer them to have.
What kind of liberties are there to be afraid of?
The GPLv3 can only restore the liberties suspended by copyright, patents, and the DMCA. It cannot grant any additional liberties, e.g. to inspect the publisher's premises, or to sleep with its CEO's daughter, etc.
That response is too facile by half. You must define liberty very narrowly and not everyone understands or agrees with such an evolving definition. I was told many years ago that GPL v1 was as free as it gets only to learn little while later that "more liberty" doesn't include the right to link to a GPL library and distribute my code with the business model I choose (namely, to keep my source closed). Is business no longer a "liberty"? How else might "liberty" change? Since it is the stated goal of GPL's most zealous advocates to end any notion of IP or even the right to keep source code to ones self (not something that exists exclusively within IP law), might we also assume that they would ban even, say, the playing of any a truly free/open mp3 by an author that defends his copyright in other matters? What about an author that simply advocates IP? Where does it end? Will the banning of "bad" thoughts themselves become "more liberty" in the future?
To the extent that certain radicals in the open source movement are willing to make changes in the GPL license and to the extent they are successful in pushing these changes into important open source projects licensing, both today (with GPL v3)...and tomorrow (with GPL v10), this adds risk to businesses and individuals that choose to adopt these open source projects. I commonly hear on slashdot that the various open source projects' very "openness" represents a very important form of insurance for its users. The assumption is that, unlike with a closed-source project, the death, bankruptsy, disengagement, or arising conflict of interest of the developer is theoretically unimportant because you can always pickup where they left off with your copy of the code.
This, of course, assumes that the source code in and of itself is sufficiently usable to the individual and other malcontents. The reality is that many people who have already adopted the platform may not have the practical ability to make their own changes when necessary (e.g., it may be too costly, to time intensive, etc) and that there may not be a sufficient credible mass behind any one forked project to make the alternative viable. Sure, the open source project may have a greater chance of recovering from a disruptive event with the developers. On the other hand, most successful closed source software has a very concrete incentive to please their customers (excepting, perhaps, the most arrogant monopolist) and they typically do not want to alienate significant groups of their customers. I'm not so sure the same can be said for many open source projects. Idealogy, for better or for worse, motivates many of its followers (but not all, esp. Linus).
Yesterday the target was applications that link-to/depend on GPL code (e.g., libraries). Today the target du jour is DRM. Tomorrow, what if the next target is the production or support of any copyrighted material (applications, music, literary works, etc) that is not GNU's idea of "open"? How many companies and individuals might be impacted by such license terms? I'm not saying that this is planned... The point, however, is that most open source users have no way of knowing what is around the corner with respect to licensing (nor should they feel the need constantly take the pulse of its philosophical leaders).
Sometimes predictability and stability are greater virtues than any group's ideas of improvement (whims).
And before this is dismissed as merely theoretical or scaremongering... Let me just say that I do feel a little burned by GPL v2. More specifically (ironically) with MySQL's adoption of it to support their licensing scheme. What, with GPL v1, would have been an attractive platform for me to do development work with, as a closed-source developer, is now not so attractive (and would have been disasterous if I commited before this change). Today I have the choice, in essense, to either pay MySQL for their commercial license (so that I can retain rights to my code) or I can GPL it (something which I find entirely unacceptable for my business model). I don't begrudge MySQL's right to make a profit off of their work, but now I'm exposed to their continued commercial licensing and their continued operations where before I would not have been. That price may be reasonable right now though one cannot, for instance, simply visit their page to obtain even a rough estimate of price (one must call and negotiate a price)... so many of the arguments for how open source speeds development start to fly out the window. Some large percentage of open source developers may believe that I should never be able to profit from an open source effort with closed-source code, but those were not the licensing terms of GPL v1 -- GPL v2 was a significant departure. Had I invested time and energy into implementing MySQL at GPL v1 I may have been in trouble. How is one to know what the future might bring? Even if I find MySQL's new terms perfectly acce
ok... my turn to sigh. You didn't actually bother to read the homework before you claimed 'facts'? I can live with someone who hasn't read any counter-claims to their world-view to title me 'ignorant', but when presented with some reading at least *READ* it before continuing to claim 'facts' that aren't actually 'facts' but theories being pushed by those that profit from the propogation of those theories...
I may choose to respond to this later, however that does not excuse the gaping holes in your argument (especially when you've shown no ability to sensibly apply this very general and widely rejected theory by the great majority of economists and virtually anyone involved with high-risk investment). Merely claiming that a first mover advantage will allow companies that are making investments into things like drugs to both recoup their costs and profit suffiently as to motivate further investment is a facile argument.
I don't disagree that profit is necessary, and don't disagree that higher risk means higher reward needs to be achievable
Yet you've seriously implied that drug companies are making too much without suggesting what the "right" number should be or really studying the history of the big pharma. Nor have you resolved the difference between a spot return at one point in time with one company versus those of average returns for investments like that. Yes, Pfizer is doing relatively well right now (one company at one point in time). However, investments are not made on the basis of what is happening today so much as what is likely to occur in the future (weighting real and perceived risk and the range of possible outcomes). When you combine what is already a high risk investment with some blundering policy that suggests that if you do happen to find some good drugs, we'll not allow you to make a healthy margin (whether through neutering patent, capping excess profits, etc) what you're really doing is sending a signal to the market to divest itself of those investments. You may not see its impact on the retail market for 10 years or so, but you would most assuredly feel it.
Merck, Pfizer, and Bristol-Meyers have all lost between 30 and 40% of their market value over the past 5 years. The reason this is happening is because their pipelines are starting to run dry (and thus their revenues are apt to take a real hit). Who in their right mind would stick their money in these companies in the environment you suggest (no patents/reduce profits/etc) when the pay-off on research won't come for 10+ years, if ever, and when it does come, it will be at small levels or worse (without patents they wouldn't be profitable at all)?
I don't think it's for anyone to decide what the profit margin should be. If there is sufficient reward (monetary or otherwise) then private enterprise will get involved. If not, then...well, it probably won't get served by the private market. If it's still important to society then the guv may step in and have a look. Like roads for example. There's no 'profit' in public roads, but we still have them (and need them...)
Pardon me for saying so, but that's a lazy and retarded approach to the matter. There is not a lot of doubt amongst actual experts in the field that the pharmaceutical companies would have to close up shop without patents. Your suggestion that where private industry fails government will take over adequately is risky and laughable. While I won't refute that there are some things government must usually be involved in (like major roads) it should be avoided whenever possible. What you are asking is for the government to basically plan our economy and for a whole lot of this burden to be shifted directly to tax payers. Pfizer's $8B dollar net income (available to shareholders) would look cheap when compared to the cost of government employees, regulations, and planning are imposed. You mentioned that government builds roads without "profits" yes, but they also plagued with corruption and vast inefficiencies.
Besides those issues, you also have the issues related to central planning. Who will decide what medicines should be made? How will they judge the attractiveness of investment and how? What body of government will they report to? How will they treat those that take risk to innovate internally? What about externally -- innovators in a patent-free world -- do you presume all good ideas occur at Govt Inc? Presuming you don't want to just transfer these costs to the tax payer (
Drug companies spend far more money on advertising than they do on research and development. The next time you watch "Wheel of Fortune", you might realize that the billions of dollars being spent pushing viagra and nexium on everyone are NOT making their way to fundamental advances in science
This is factually wrong by any informed account. Direct-to-consumer advertising only accounts for roughly 1% of drug revenues. Most of the promotional costs go to free samples (+50% of it) and sales reps (~30%) with the remainder going to ads in clinical journals, sponsored research, etc. The total DTC expenditures for all drugs is roughly 3B dollars. While 3B may sound like a ton, this only equals about $8.50 per person in the US (ignoring that drugs are sold to a wider international audience).
Furthermore, you seem to be under the false impression that any dollar spent on promotion is a dollar wasted or that any good drug will sell itself. However, the facts do not support your opinion. Many good drugs have been under-prescribed for a long time despite the drug companies' promotional efforts and guidance from leading experts, the CDC, etc.
For instance, it is widely known by cardiovascular experts today that statins have been way under-prescribed. There have been numerous studies that have shown that roughly 1/3 of heart attacks would be prevented if statins were prescribed to high-risk patients alone. This despite the fact that statins were introduced well over 18 years ago for precisely this purpose. The number of high risk patients on statins was just 9% in 1992 (several years after their introduction) and just 19% in 2002. Even after a year after additional studies were performed (e.g., "Adult Treatment Panel III") just 50% of said patients were on the statins. Read it. Virtually every industry advertises especially those with something new to sell and those with very high fixed costs and relatively low marginal costs.
Besides just the issue of under-prescription you should also consider that profit margins are not fixed. If they spent nothing on promotion it is very likely that their sales would suffer terribly. Assuming R&D and other non-promotional overhead is held constant their margins would quickly be reduced into negative territory, which would force them to raise prices or cut back on R&D to make it a viable business (or raise more capital, which would be impossible). The odds are very high that most classes of drugs would cease be economically viable since the few patients that are prescribed a particular new drug in some dire circumstance would not be able to afford the vastly higher prices.
No matter what the local basement-dwelling Rand-ite may tell you, economics is not a science and is not necessarily the best model for health care. Human welfare is not a widget that can (or should) be bought and sold like a car or an mp3 player.
These thoughts are fine and good, but this doesn't change the fact that drugs are produced largely by private US corporations (and a handful of Euro firms...which are increasingly coming to the US) and that they need to cover their primary costs (R&D) and they even, gasp, need to make a profit to ensure continued investment. Until such time that our government, hell ANY government, proves itself capable of developing its own medicines with any reliability, let alone doing them nearly as cost-effectively, I would not want government to meddle with the drug industry model (except, perhaps, in the most extreme of circumstances, like AIDS drugs in the 3rd World).
Actually, copyright is specifically NOT a natural right in the US, although it is considered one in Europe. That was a major hangup in copyright treaties, until they agreed to disagree.
Besides the fact that this is really a philosophical debate now, many of the so-called "natural rights" have drifted too, there is considerable debate about this in the US today. Though Jefferson was clearly influential in advocating the view that IP is mere social contract, this was not the predominant view of the time. Try reading this paper before presuming that all people who think otherwise are idiots. Many people want to take a very selective view of history by saying that the courts were right in taking a less expansive view of IP rights, but that they're wrong now that it is drifting in the other direction.
It is also worth keeping in mind that patents and copyrights have important diferences. A strong copyrights has little chance of colliding with the rights of others to create independently whereas a strong patent necessarily demand significant breadth and these create a significant chance of interfering with independent invention (or at least creates the opportunity for someone to make a credible claim). I support strong patent rights, but I can accept a more nuanced view of these than I can copyrights.
It's not representative at all; that's Pfizer, who hit the lifestyle-drug goldmine with Viagra and also sells bestselling drug Lipitor. Unless they're running the next Viagra through testing right now and not telling anyone about it, when those drugs go out of patent around 2011, their lucky streak will end and their numbers will go back to something resembling sanity.
Uh this may seem like a quibble, however Viagra has not been nearly as successful of a drug as Lipitor (especially not in the context of profitability). I forget the exact numbers, but Lipitor sales are roughly 10x Viagra's sales. Viagra and other so-called lifestyle drugs actually make up a relatively small part of their revenues when compared to their non-lifestyle drugs like Lipitor, Zoloft, Celebrex, Bextra, Exhubera, etc. I'd estimate that less than 5% of their revenues are derived from lifestyle drugs (though many people predicted Viagra would contribute hugely... it's largely fizzled).
And you think those 'studies' will not be done? How many people still buy Tylenol, when there is a perfectly good generic acetaminophen bottle sitting right next to it in most pharmacies for half the cost?
The same can be said of many things, however this is usually only with something that costs a relatively small amount in the first place so that the percieved price difference is very small for the consumer. This is not the case with generics. Furthermore, it ignores the fact that unless the doctor specifically specifies no generic substitution the rx, most managed care companies will insist that the generic be taken. Most doctors do not do this unless there is a good reason to (in some cases, the generic formulations are not consistent and it can make a difference)... if the doctors abuse this though the payors will tend to get upset.
Viagra will still sell like hotcakes, even though generic equivalents will be available.
Some people will still buy viagra when it is off patent. However, research has shown that once generics emerge the revenues of the drug companies decline dramatically -- especially when both the customer and the payor have to pay. This is even true with line extensions.
(Probably manufactured in the same facility, just with a different label).
Not terribly relevant, but no, they're not (I know people high up in the foodchain at J&J).
That's where their marketing budget goes.
Their "marketing" budget is little understood and vastly overstated by the likes of people on Slashdot. The "marketing" you are thinking of is DTC ads (TV, Magazines, etc) which are only about 1% of revenues (or about 10% of their promotional budget). They spend about 50% of their promotional budget of providing free samples to doctors (which, in turn, doctors give to patients--which are often beneficial) and most of the remaining amount paying their sales reps to promote new drugs.
To show an example to illustrate this (picked purely at random, and may not be typical in the industry, but I suspect it is): Revenue (ttm) : 52.21B Gross Profit (ttm): 42.77B Profit Margin (ttm): 24.17%
Pfizer is hardly a representative sample of the average drug company at an average time in recent history. They are probably the most successful drug companies right now because they have a few highly successful blockbuster drugs still on patent. This picture is likely to change for the worse over the next several years as their patents expire and the current pipeline is apt relatively dry.
...and this shows the industry enjoys about a 65% Gross Margin.
And this is a meaningless statistic in a heavily R&D driven business. All this means is that their COGS sold, i.e., the to actually manufacture the pills themselves, is about 35% on average. It says nothing of the cost of R&D, licensing, legal/lawsuits, management overhead, and, gasp, even sales (which are important to ANY business).
So to agree with what you're saying: Pfizer made some 42billion dollars in profits because they have protection on their product; and that profit comes directly from the consumer, and comes directly at the expense of sick people that can't afford the drugs they produce.
'Research' is an expense which decreases profit. Such large profits are simply monopoly protection income that has not been spent as promised: on research. This clearly shows us that we need to at a minimum reduce the patent term, and more realisticly review the very concept of drug patents
The 42 billion dollar you cite is "gross profit" which ignores various important operating expenses like: R&D, SG&A/overhead, one time charges, and other important expenses. After these expenses are taken into account the "profit" is roughly 11 billion dollars. Furthermore, it also ignores interest ($471M) and taxes ($3.5B). The actual net income available to shareholders was roughly 8 billion dollars (about 80% less than what you suggest) and this is the most relevant number if you wish to discuss the attractiveness of the businesses and its cost structure. Numbers for the lazy.
Now you might argue that 42B over COGS is only possible in large part because of patents, but then you'd also have to acknowledge that without that 42B dollars a lot of other essential activities like R&D, IT, Legal, mgmt, etc would not be covered. In other words, even if we assume that the shareholders need no profits, and strip them of their 8B dollars, the notion that there are huge savings to be had over the long term by eviscerating the drug companies is not borne out by the numbers.
Contrast that with an industry that doesn't enjoy protection on it's product, say Toyota (also picked randomly but assumed to be more or less industry leader at this time)
Revenue (ttm): 189.92B Gross Profit (ttm): 34.83B Profit Margin (ttm): 7.00%...and this industry has to make do with only about 19% Gross Margin.
Wrong. Toyota owns more than ten thousand patents.. What's more, each non-Toyota component in the car typically claims at least several patents, even if not owned by Toyota those patents still spur innovation.
By the way, Redhat (RHT) has profit margin of 18%.
Anyone who argues that the current patent system is necessary or healthy in the face of these abnormal profits is sick and twisted or stupid or corrupt or maybe all of the
So was slavery, and it was claimed that all sorts of economic collapse would follow if it was abolished.
Not quite. Adam Smith probably, the most respected economist of modern history, was opposed to slavery. He said: "From the experience of all ages and nations, I believe, that the work done by free men comes cheaper in the end than the work performed by slaves. Whatever work he does, beyond what is sufficient to purchase his own maintenance, can be squeezed out of him by violence only, and not by any interest of his own.". David Hume, another great economist and philosopher of the day was also opposed to it. There were many other respected intellectuals that opposed it for economic and moral reasons (even those that thought slaves were lesser beings). Though a handful of people of the day may have attempted to make economic arguments in support of slavery, the only way to arrive at this point is to assert that slaves were non-people and thus should not count into the calculus or that it was permissable as a form of self-defence (e.g., Locke was opposed to it, except as a consequence of an unjust war against the enslaver). Then we also have the empiric evidence that the south was an economic backwater (thanks in no small part to the institution)... In short, the economic arguments in support of slavery were extremey weak (even for white society) and had no basis in net wealth creation.
In any event, your argument that we shouldn't enforce laws because "we" were wrong about slavery and therefore we might be wrong about copyright runs contrary to almost any accepted philosophy and legal wisdom. The law must proceed as it is on the books on the presumption that it is correct; law can be changed and challeged in the courts. If you believe the law is unjust, you are free to visibly resist but you must willingly accept your punishment (see anyone from Socrates to MLK Jr). To do otherwise is cowardly and is a greater violance against society.
They why do you not honor copyright law?
We are in the United States and we are talking about the rights of US citizens in US territory to violate copyright law. It doesn't get much more cut and dried than this. Russian law is an entirely seperate consideration.
The Russian copyright law, like the US copyright law, provides for compulsory licensing in specific instances.
This is, at best, a technicality under Russian law in the case of allofmp3 and is sure to get stomped out soon. Russia stands to lose admission to the WTO if they do not. Furthermore, compulsory licensing would imply that they're actually paying the artists and all evidence suggests that they have not.
Why do you object to Russia's rules, but not ours.
Russia's legal system is weak in many areas, not just IP, and they do not have anything close to a healthy economy based innovation and authorship due in no small part to their weak support of IP and the rule of law itself. What's more, I believe that one should have the right to enjoy the fruits of their labor, whether physical or intellectual, so this "law", if that is what you want to call it, is not defensible.
I'd have modded ya up anyway just for the assertion that FOX/CNN/MSNBC are absurd- even sans the caveat... My.02--- keep the change.
Well Thanks:-)
What the parent poster is forgetting here is the fact that TDS is on a network called, "Comedy Central." It in no way purports itself as a news station.
I don't care what it purports itself to be. I care what its impact on political discourse is. If Bill O'Reilly renamed his show to the "a lighthearted entertainment show with a moral-conservative reactionist spin" that wouldn't absolve him of all responsibility for his coverage. It is reasonable to examine the outcome of the show on the viewers (whether through intentional spin or simply aweful coverage). I'm not suggesting that we try to regulate it in any way, just that we perhaps re-think how we talk about these shows.
I don't have the survey at hand, but I have seen polls that suggest that something like ~25% of young voters got most of their 2004 election coverage news from TDS and SNL. I know some young voters like this myself. Even if some of those voters also get "news" from a blog/website heavily slanted towards their favorite political party, they are missing out. I see value in news that at least makes some attempt at providing a more moderate and informed discussion -- if nothing else to present some basic and indisputable facts (not just those that support one view or the other). There have been a number of studies that have shown that people of both political persuasions that just talk to people of their own leanings tended to get more extreme and entrenched in their views (and were more hostile to others), whereas those that talked to people of other political views tended to at least adopt a much more nuanced and open view. I suspect this is at least part of the reason why politics of both stripes has gotten more radical and combative.
To the extent that the Daily Show acts as a replacement for up-to-date news for some of its viewers and to the extent that it embarrasses politicians (or makes them look absurd/extreme) for what would otherwise be sensible and reasonable discourse (leaving aside the balance for a minute) by selective editing and quotation, I have concerns for society at large. Calling it entertainment does not automatically mean it has no negative impact on politics.
And as much as Blogs might be a concern, frankly, if you have the wherewithall to subscribe/read a blog, then you're far better off than the remote jockey that takes in his news in the 30 minutes before South Park.
Well, maybe, but someone can't pretend they follow the world news by watching Southpark and, regardless, both in and of themselves can leave the viewer/reader in pretty sorry shape as far as balanced coverage of world events and politics goes. Slanted blogs might have their place, but when they are consumed to the exclusion of any balanced news, I suspect they a harmful to our political system.
A business does not have a "right" to livelyhood. Whatever choice they make to maximize profits seems reasonable to let people do to maximize their "profit" (in the sense of effective use of their money).
I never once said or implied that businesses have a "right" to a livelyhood. My argument is that if the US does not allow many of these businesses to outsource certain parts of their businesses, then we will lose cause a greater loss of jobs and revenue (not just those few manufacturing jobs that represent a few percent of our economy). That said, I do think individuals, and thus companies by extension, should have have a generally unrestricted right to engage in commerce as they see fit baring some fundamental reason not to--generally as long as the two primary parties are willing participants and especially if both benefit. I view this is more than just something which is economically beneficial, but a fundamental part of the pursuit of happiness. In other words, no one should not guaranteed revenue or profits, but they sure as hell should be allowed to do what they want within reason to try.
I can. Just because you aren't smart enough to think of a valid argument does not mean one can not exist. Well, it can be if you claim you are smarter than everyone else on the planet combined (and, if you are the smartest person, you will note that it is not just that you are smarter than anyone else, but you must be smarter than everyone else).
One, it is the law. Two, numerous economic theory and studies support it. Three, I have argued this issue extensively on slashdot and other places and I do not believe you have a good argument against. Four, one does not need to be the smartest person in the world to determine what is "reasonable". Please refer to the well established legal fiction of the "reasonable man" with its origins in common law. Society would fall apart with such a notion.
Either way, your arguement by asserting that everyone else is wrong because you say so does not work very well to convince anyone else.
Uh, in support of copyright law, I have the support of: the most respected economists; the legal system of virtually every developed country; the US Constition; and the founding fathers... to name a few. It is hardly "just" me.
Even when you catch them in a blatant lie, with evidence--like those Jon Stewart clips comparing what Bush said a few years ago to what he says now--they can shrug it off, because they know people will A) forget or B) only get exposed to the message of the week or C) be too cynical/disillusioned to act.
I watch the Daily Show fairly regularly (tivo). Though he is often funny and sometimes really pings people for lies and disingenious spin, I also think his sort of humor can be harmful to intelligent political discourse. Yes, he sometimes rightfully cuts Bush and others down (and I'm saying this as someone that voted for Bush twice, albeit grudgingly...you can mod be down the -10 TROLL now), but he has also pulled things out of context numerous times and reduced all too many questions to only one very limited and often emotion driven dynamic. This is particularly troubling when his own political leanings are very much to the left and when many of his younger views get their news largely from him.
I hate the sensational/soundbyte news system that we have today. Stewart does a great job of pointing out the absurdity of CNN/FOX/MSNBC/etc (when it suits him at least), but in many ways he is part of that very same system now. Politics has become a game whereby the winners win by making the shortest and simplest statements designed to appeal to their constituency such that they cannot be cut up and taken out of context. The middle and well argued ground has been all but cut out of the media (and I do not think BLOGs particularly help with this either--as they usually target one extreme or the other). Anything controversial is strictly verbotten. It does not pay to try to express a complex-thought to the media or to make meaningful off the cuff remarks because any small mistatement will be thrown back in your face and your actual statements and any nuance in them will not remain intact for the listeners to hear (especially shows like TDS). Sure, many Democratic-leaning* voters may find it less-noticable and less-objectionable, but I suspect that if and when Fox or whomever comes out with the equivalent conservative leaning show there will be increased scrutiny... even if the humor is the same.
* Yes, I recognize he has taken jabs at Kerry and other Democrats, but these usually aren't aimed at policy and certainly not usually at mainstream Democratic policy itself (the fringe stuff, perhaps).
I simply must purchase music overseas to maintain a competitive standard of living.
Your livelyhood does not depend on your maintaining a "competitive" standard of living, nor can you reasonably argue that music piracy is a net long-term gain.
Farmers CAN'T decide to charge 1 billion/oz exactly because they don't have a monopoly (natural or granted) on food crops. If the farmers decided to try that, people would dig up their yards and plant crops.
ROFL!! Have you ever talked to anyone that has even tried to farm for a living (not as a hobby)? There is a reason why the small family owned farm is practically extinct today. It takes a lot of skill, know how, equipment, fertilizer, irrigation, etc to make farming work -- nevermind to have it work with the level of efficiency that most people in the US take for granted these days or that existing agriculture occupies most of the most suitable land today. Do you really think a handful of people are going to produce enough food for 300m+ of our population in several years (never mind several weeks)? LOL
Please understand, I don't advocate stripping pharmaceutical companies of all profit or giving them nothing for their R & D efforts.
What, pray tell, is the "proper" amount of profit for a drug company to make?
I only state that the current patent system is not an appropriate solution.
And my grandfather only states that compilers are wholly inappropriate because of all the bugs found in software today. Having an unresearched and unsupported opinion hardly makes you qualified to promulgate law.
A good starter would be greater public investment in R&D.
I'm all for more fundamental research, but this would have almost no impact on the price of drugs as the government does not engage in this kind of applied R&D. Furthermore, if your contention is that the government can and should do this well and that the drug companies are wasting their money of frivilous drugs, then why not allow both to do their own thing independent of each other?
As for advertising, if a drug REALLY saves lives or vastly improves quality of life in a way that no other drug does, they don't NEED advertising beyond publishing the study that demonstrates it's effectiveness.
Nonsense.
Firstly, the concept that patients will beat their way to your door or that doctors will prescribe your drug just because you publish evidence in a Journal that your drug statistically saves lives is simply wrong. For instance, it is widely known by cardiovascular experts today that statins have been way under-prescribed. There have been numerous studies that have shown that roughly 1/3 of heart attacks would be prevented if statins were prescribed to high-risk patients alone. This despite the fact that statins were introduced well over 18 years ago for precisely this purpose. The number of high risk patients on statins was just 9% in 1992 (several years after their introduction) and just 19% in 2002. Even after a year after additional studies were performed (e.g., "Adult Treatment Panel III") just 50% of said patients were on the statins. Read it. Virtually every industry advertises especially those with something new to sell and those with very high fixed costs and relatively low marginal costs.
Secondly, you neglect the fact that many doctors today, in particular GPs, are seriously time constrained and are overworked. They do not have the time to read every journal in detail and read enough of the literature to feel comfortable prescribing many new drugs--especially when it comes to comparing it to the alternatives. This is why drug sales reps come around to doctors offices with the latest and most relevant study data, pamphlets for patients, and free samples makes a world of difference. Furthermore, some sales reps are often directly involved with both doctor and patient training and education. Insulin pumps, for instance (a business which I'm intimately fam
When a company moves its manufacturing division from the U.S. to Malaysia to take advantage of the industry-friendly labour laws in that country, they're applauded for their ingenuity.
While labor laws may play some small roll in US companies decision the outsource, the primary motivator is that labor is much cheaper there. The median income in Malaysia is roughly $10K per year (US median income is roughly 5x that). In other words, even if they had to pay US minimum wage the Malaysian employees would have a higher income than half Malaysia and would certainly be far better off than the average Malaysian in a similar job. That minimum wage would also still be about 65% cheaper than the wage of the average US factory worker (~$16/hour and that's ignoring benefits, overtime, etc) and those employees would tend be of a much higher caliber than a similarly compensated person in the US.
There is no doubt that there have been abuses (like there have been in the US), but to argue that the Malaysians and others have not benefited overall from these jobs is simply wrong. If you think you're doing these workers a favor by trying to prevent jobs from migrating (or by trying to mandate US wage standards there), you are deluding yourself.
Furthermore, while I do not know anyone that cheers the outsourcing US manufacturing jobs per se, it is inevitable and many companies simply must do it to compete internationally and domestically.
I argue that exactly because of those patents and greed, the last 10 years worth of medical research hasn't had anywhere near the impact that it could have.
You argue this without the least bit of understanding of the science and financial realities behind drug development and you ignore the empirical evidence of many successful drugs being developed on patent (and the near absolute lack innovation in countries which don't). The business would simply collapse without patents.
You may also want to consider some empirical studies like this:
It compares EU price controls and their effects on R&D spending vs that of the US.
There's nothing like an extreme example! Let's say I develop a pill that can magiclly cure AIDS and any cancer AND adds 50 years to the patient's lifespan all with just one dose. Sale price $1,000,000,000 per dose. Total effect on average lifespan would be zero since the average patient couldn't afford it even given 50 years to pay for it.
That is an absurd hypothetical. What if every farmer decided to charge 1 billion dollars per ounce of crop? People would starve! Should be eliminate the free market? Of course not. This would not be profit maximizing activity and ignores the fact that drugs are, in fact, quite affordable relative to the overall costs of development.
You don't have to go to the 3rd world to find people dying for the lack of a modern drug, many seniors in the U.S. routinely skip prescribed medications or take half doses due to inability to afford their prescription.
And yet our seniors are living longer and healthier lives than ever before despite the growth of diabetes (a major epidemic) and obesity. I'm not saying that things are perfect here, far from it, but that the consequences of government price regulation and/or eviscerating patents would be far more severe over the long term than any short term benefits that we might gain.
Others in the same financial boat are able to smuggle their prescriptions across the border from Canada.
Just because Canada and a select number of other countries institute price controls and enjoy a free ride does not mean that major markets like the US can do this without having a severe negative impact on the development of new drugs worldwide (and moreso locally).
Also a large amount of this behavior owes to ignorance of the part of the buyer. Canada forces the brand name drug companies to drop their prices on drugs closer to that of their generic equivalents so that the branded product is priced significantly less in Canada. Many of these buyers do not realize that most of their medications can be purchased from non-branded generics for less than the branded product in Canada (and more often than not even their generics) and that in the vast majority of cases generics are a perfectly acceptable substitute (in some rare cases the formulation isn't consistent and it can make a difference...though doctors will usually indicate this). If you compare the prices of drugs still on patent the difference are appreciably smaller.
The idea that there is a ton of money to be saved by stripping drug companies of their excess profits is very much flawed. The average profit margin of the drug companies is around 25% (and significantly lower if you look at it over time). This means that you're unlikely to achieve much more than a 25% reduction in average prices on overtime without stripping them of their budgets for R&D and other critical areas that are necessary to sustain the business (yes, even marketing and sales) even if you are to assume that profits are irre
But it is a huge burden. This is exactly what is meant by "chilling effects". You create an environment where legit stuff cannot be shared, because it's better to be safe than sorry. It is totally unreasonable to expect people to be able to tell whether some data is copyrighted if it has no notice (because it has been removed) and they can't even EXAMINE the data. It sounds as if you're not okay with a person who downloads something, then discovers it's copyrighted, and erases it.
Ridiculous.
Firstly, this case (Lindor) and virtually every recording industry lawsuit only relate to the illegal UPLOADING and SHARING of many seperate copyrighted songs (tens to thousands) -- not mere downloading. Thus the claim that these lawsuits might create a chilling effect on legitimate downloading activity is unreasonable. Even if a user inadvertantly downloads a handful of pirated songs, they have the opportunity to correct it and they can certainly choose whether or not to share those songs if they're not certain about. Furthermore, this argument is even more ludicrous when you consider that in most of these cases the great majority of songs offered on the defendents' P2P programs are obviously pirated. If you have 40 songs available for download and 38 of them are hits belonging to major record labels, there is no plausible excuse.
Secondly, Kazaa and other existing P2P technologies are a lousy way to get legitimate material and they could provide numerous mechanisms to remove pirated material. The only area where technologies like Kazaa provide any advantage is as a place to download pirated material, because it is harder to police than most and provides an environment conducive to sharing. If you want to find legitimate non-pirated material you can often find it on the artists own website or other such sources that provide some reasonable assurances that it is legitimate.
If P2P/bandwidth concerns are your hangup, P2P networks could easily adapt their software to uniquely identify copyrighted material (or even exclude it from being shared in the first place) and, at the same time, provide better search and downloading of material. For instance, they could design their software to take a unique signature of each file on the network and have anyone that introduces the song to vouch for it. In the loosest scenario, RIAA could identify any music that belongs to them and forward the violating signatures to the P2P network manager for removal/sharing-ban. This would have the added advantage in that it would give the operator the legal coverage needed to operate central servers (like Napster) which is unquestionably superior to the distributed designs found in Kazaa (which limit the scope of searches dramatically... not to mention create a lot of clutter due to lack of proper naming/metadeta). Of course, most of these networks want to do no such thing because they know that the demand for legitimate material is much much smaller as compared to pirated stuff.
And move where? Globalization is making that a lot harder. Anyway, doesn't matter, I am not running away.
Vote with your feet. You don't absolutely have to buy any particular software package -- especially those few with onerous EULAs. If, for instance, Microsoft Windows' EULA is too much for you, then use Mac, Linux, BSD, etc. Please tell me the specific parts of the EULAs that you object to.
I vote, and I argue on the Internet.
Arguing on the internet doesn't automatically make you an informed citizen. This has been made abundantly clear from listening to your "arguments."
That sounds like "rules is rules"...And financial considerations should play a part.
No, that is a seperate argument. Your assumption that the legal costs should never exceed the costs of what is presumably lost (never mind it is only what you
Slashdot Mirror
This is a non sequitur. This implies that no one would want to not publish their source code were it not for copyright law. You have shown no evidence. Nor have you presented an argument for this position. All this inspite of the fact that I have presented both the means and the motive for a significant number of people to keep their code secret without the copyright law. What's more, you appear to have an irrational belief that the majority of closed-source developers would keep on developing code, only they would magically decide to publish their source code too instead making their binaries obscure and encrypted and trying to find ways to force people to pay.
Consider, for instance, that I could take a GPL project, like, say, Mozilla and improve it by 300%, then sell the software as a service through a good remote terminal service like RDP/Citrix/etc. Even in your convoluted idea of natural law you would have no chance to copy my work or modify it (unless you accept the notion that it is both possible and morally permissible to hack my server to give you the level of access you need). Thus in absence of copyright I would still have plenty of incentive to develop original closed source goods and, because of the removal of copyright law, I would be free to make and sell-as-service improved derivative versions of GPL products (and be legally free to keep the code closed).
Against? I believe in IP and I believe GPL because of it. To the contrary, I think that open source and closed source complement each other. Each has their strengths and weaknesses (though, open source, not being able to sustain most development activities, is and will remain a minority). My gripe against GPL is only that its increasing and unpredictable radicalness hurts the open source movement itself and, to small small extent, discourages code re-use in the non-GPL world. The notion that you're going to force, say, a game developer to adopt GPL so that they might exploit the code base ignores the fact that this same license also bars them the ability to recover their sunk costs and make a reasonable profit (service is not an answer for everything... most things infact).
I disagree. The internet raises new concerns, yes, but many if not most of these means to pirate also have critical chokepoints (ISPs, software makers, servers, trusted computing, etc). One need not stamp out every last act to be successful. A ~4MB music file might be one of the easier targets for pirates, but the same cannot be said for drugs, engineering designs, much software, etc. What's more, the Internet also makes possible wholly new forms of DRM (remote key servers, constant update/changing of software, etc) and content protection (like running software as a service, like gmail or as an app over a remote terminal).
One might also make similar arguments, like what you make, but for pedophiles and child molesters thanks to the increasingly low barriers between sickos and naive children. Does this mean the law should stand still and fail to adapt? I don't think so. Most educated members of society recognize the critical value of IP in the modern economy and will tend to support the evolving legal and even technical system to support rights.
How, pray tell, is it "unethical" if I have no obligation to share in the first place? How is it any different than my imposing a contract on you in exchange
Slashdot:
You Are Not A Laywer. So please stop being the tool for this lawyer and his celebrity seeking habits (what is this, the 2nd article published this week from this guy?).
The issue du jour is about antitrust concerns for the plaintiff: if they communicate specific pricing to each other in any way they might be accused of price fixing. It may or may not be valid (and I'm sure it's a complicated legal matter). Seeing as how almost no one here has studied law and can offer intelligent commentary on this latest development, why don't you leave it up for the judge to decide? I also don't think the ~70 cents estimate is new knowledge here. In short, there's no news for slashdot here.
Move along.
Not quite. My "right" to selectively publish my binary code and choose not to release my source code (or to simply delete it, post-compile) does not depend on any personal claim to copyright, patents, or protections brought by the DMCA (you might argue you could legally reverse engineer it without this, but it would not give you source code and it would certainly not be coming from me). To the contrary, the only thing compelling me to continuously release my source code that are derivative of GPL software is copyright law itself. In absence of copyright law, anyone may be free to try to copy or reverse-engineer my software if they can get their hands on the binary, but this does not mean that they would necessarily succeed in either using my product for free (esp. if run as a service or with DRM on some obscure platform) or (especially) in obtaining the source so that they could make their own modifications.
I find it rather amusing how the most vociferous advocates gloss over this fact. If we were to completely reverse all laws pertaining to IP, the GPL itself would be meaningless and unenforcable: anyone could legally rerelease any GPL code as they see fit: with highly obscure, with DRM, as plain old closed-source software, as a trade-secret service, and so on.
I respect the right of IP creators to set the terms by which their contributions may be used: this specifically includes the right of RMS and his loyal followers to set fairly arbitrary license terms on the stuff they contribute. This does not, however, mean that they are right to constantly change the terms and pull the rug out from under people. Nor does it mean that many open source developers share their views just because some of the more zealous are able to slip their new license in.
Copyright and patent law was promulgated in the US Constitution more than 218 years ago.
... and England recognized copyright as early as almost 300 years ago with the Statute of Anne.
Read Article I, Section 8, Clause 8:
Congess shall have the power...
"To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries."
And who is "we" and what "liberty" did "we" have? Even before the Statute of Anne was passed, the English monarchs granted monopoly rights to publishers and each publisher had an exclusive right to their own works... which in turn directly compensated the authors with a lump sum payment for publication (that sum, however, would not be worth much if the publisher had no exclusivity). This system arguably created incentives to publish. Where is evidence of great literary activity before and outside of such frameworks... prior to ~1410 (given that there really was not printing, as such, and that most people were likely illiterate)?
I disagree. I do not believe the public has a fundamental right to the fruit of my labor, whether intellectual or physical. If I create and do not share with you, you're none the poorer than if I had not shared it in the first place. The mere fact that you can steal my work without compensating me as per contract does not make it right, anymore than your potential ability steal physical property from me makes it right. Yeah, I know that Jefferson and some others took a different view (my flame is not diminished if you light from mi
Again, many of its contributors may not share this same idea. If I create a closed-source application that merely links to a GPL library (not modifies it) so that I can interface with the platform, I fail to see how you can argue that I am "taking" code from you. This philosophy is a little contradictory to say the least. Furthermore, the point is that this was not part of GPL v1 -- so where is the "design"? Where is the document that I can read? What if the next part of the "design" is that any data contained within an GPL database must also be disclosed?
It is testament to the fact that reasonable people, such as myself, see the value in sharing some code (like in the case of Linux and other such common platforms). In this specific instance, the attraction is not to have to write my own data storage engine. MySQL was attractive because: of its nominal price, the (falsely) perceived stability (of the project/on-going support), and potentially its future scalability (long term plans). [Not because it is the best product on the market for technical merits -- MSSQL and Oracle are superior in many ways]. However, the actual price imposed on me as a developer, due to future threats imposed by zealots like yourself (if MySQL shows signs of caving at least), will likely force me to choose Postgresql or a commercial engine -- which, at the end of the day, are likely to be appreciably superior. And, as a side note, I will likely avoid making any GPL code contributions in the future, in favor of artistic-style licenses or just keeping it closed, as the GPL crowd is turning increasingly radical and away from pragmatic concerns. If I make a contribution under a particular licensing scheme, I want that licensing scheme to remain largely the same or, at the very least, evolve in a predictable and pragmatic direction.
This issue is much broader than just my rights as a developer with commercial interests. When opensource zealots can't restrain themselves from muddling with the licensing of existing and critical projects. Even if these purges just limit themselves to anything directly relating to copyright, patents, trade-secret, etc -- many more people, companies, and applications may find themselves at the other end of this unpredictable and constantly changing license.
Caveat Emptor.... or, as saying goes (paraphrased)...
"First they came for them, then they came for me"
In any event, you can read my longer post on this article (a related topic).
I believe that changing licenses on users midstream is the greater threat to users and, perhaps, to the movement itself (by alienating its users). Rather than re-typing or pasting everything again, you can read my prior comment on this article.
In any event, you can see my longer thread on the matter.
To the extent that certain radicals in the open source movement are willing to make changes in the GPL license and to the extent they are successful in pushing these changes into important open source projects licensing, both today (with GPL v3)...and tomorrow (with GPL v10), this adds risk to businesses and individuals that choose to adopt these open source projects. I commonly hear on slashdot that the various open source projects' very "openness" represents a very important form of insurance for its users. The assumption is that, unlike with a closed-source project, the death, bankruptsy, disengagement, or arising conflict of interest of the developer is theoretically unimportant because you can always pickup where they left off with your copy of the code.
This, of course, assumes that the source code in and of itself is sufficiently usable to the individual and other malcontents. The reality is that many people who have already adopted the platform may not have the practical ability to make their own changes when necessary (e.g., it may be too costly, to time intensive, etc) and that there may not be a sufficient credible mass behind any one forked project to make the alternative viable. Sure, the open source project may have a greater chance of recovering from a disruptive event with the developers. On the other hand, most successful closed source software has a very concrete incentive to please their customers (excepting, perhaps, the most arrogant monopolist) and they typically do not want to alienate significant groups of their customers. I'm not so sure the same can be said for many open source projects. Idealogy, for better or for worse, motivates many of its followers (but not all, esp. Linus).
Yesterday the target was applications that link-to/depend on GPL code (e.g., libraries). Today the target du jour is DRM. Tomorrow, what if the next target is the production or support of any copyrighted material (applications, music, literary works, etc) that is not GNU's idea of "open"? How many companies and individuals might be impacted by such license terms? I'm not saying that this is planned... The point, however, is that most open source users have no way of knowing what is around the corner with respect to licensing (nor should they feel the need constantly take the pulse of its philosophical leaders).
Sometimes predictability and stability are greater virtues than any group's ideas of improvement (whims).
And before this is dismissed as merely theoretical or scaremongering... Let me just say that I do feel a little burned by GPL v2. More specifically (ironically) with MySQL's adoption of it to support their licensing scheme. What, with GPL v1, would have been an attractive platform for me to do development work with, as a closed-source developer, is now not so attractive (and would have been disasterous if I commited before this change). Today I have the choice, in essense, to either pay MySQL for their commercial license (so that I can retain rights to my code) or I can GPL it (something which I find entirely unacceptable for my business model). I don't begrudge MySQL's right to make a profit off of their work, but now I'm exposed to their continued commercial licensing and their continued operations where before I would not have been. That price may be reasonable right now though one cannot, for instance, simply visit their page to obtain even a rough estimate of price (one must call and negotiate a price)... so many of the arguments for how open source speeds development start to fly out the window. Some large percentage of open source developers may believe that I should never be able to profit from an open source effort with closed-source code, but those were not the licensing terms of GPL v1 -- GPL v2 was a significant departure. Had I invested time and energy into implementing MySQL at GPL v1 I may have been in trouble. How is one to know what the future might bring? Even if I find MySQL's new terms perfectly acce
Yet you've seriously implied that drug companies are making too much without suggesting what the "right" number should be or really studying the history of the big pharma. Nor have you resolved the difference between a spot return at one point in time with one company versus those of average returns for investments like that. Yes, Pfizer is doing relatively well right now (one company at one point in time). However, investments are not made on the basis of what is happening today so much as what is likely to occur in the future (weighting real and perceived risk and the range of possible outcomes). When you combine what is already a high risk investment with some blundering policy that suggests that if you do happen to find some good drugs, we'll not allow you to make a healthy margin (whether through neutering patent, capping excess profits, etc) what you're really doing is sending a signal to the market to divest itself of those investments. You may not see its impact on the retail market for 10 years or so, but you would most assuredly feel it.
Some food for thought:
Pfizer and Bristol-Meyers 5 year stock chart
Pfizer and Merck 5 year stock chart
Merck, Pfizer, and Bristol-Meyers have all lost between 30 and 40% of their market value over the past 5 years. The reason this is happening is because their pipelines are starting to run dry (and thus their revenues are apt to take a real hit). Who in their right mind would stick their money in these companies in the environment you suggest (no patents/reduce profits/etc) when the pay-off on research won't come for 10+ years, if ever, and when it does come, it will be at small levels or worse (without patents they wouldn't be profitable at all)?
Pardon me for saying so, but that's a lazy and retarded approach to the matter. There is not a lot of doubt amongst actual experts in the field that the pharmaceutical companies would have to close up shop without patents. Your suggestion that where private industry fails government will take over adequately is risky and laughable. While I won't refute that there are some things government must usually be involved in (like major roads) it should be avoided whenever possible. What you are asking is for the government to basically plan our economy and for a whole lot of this burden to be shifted directly to tax payers. Pfizer's $8B dollar net income (available to shareholders) would look cheap when compared to the cost of government employees, regulations, and planning are imposed. You mentioned that government builds roads without "profits" yes, but they also plagued with corruption and vast inefficiencies.
Besides those issues, you also have the issues related to central planning. Who will decide what medicines should be made? How will they judge the attractiveness of investment and how? What body of government will they report to? How will they treat those that take risk to innovate internally? What about externally -- innovators in a patent-free world -- do you presume all good ideas occur at Govt Inc? Presuming you don't want to just transfer these costs to the tax payer (
Furthermore, you seem to be under the false impression that any dollar spent on promotion is a dollar wasted or that any good drug will sell itself. However, the facts do not support your opinion. Many good drugs have been under-prescribed for a long time despite the drug companies' promotional efforts and guidance from leading experts, the CDC, etc.
For instance, it is widely known by cardiovascular experts today that statins have been way under-prescribed. There have been numerous studies that have shown that roughly 1/3 of heart attacks would be prevented if statins were prescribed to high-risk patients alone. This despite the fact that statins were introduced well over 18 years ago for precisely this purpose. The number of high risk patients on statins was just 9% in 1992 (several years after their introduction) and just 19% in 2002. Even after a year after additional studies were performed (e.g., "Adult Treatment Panel III") just 50% of said patients were on the statins. Read it. Virtually every industry advertises especially those with something new to sell and those with very high fixed costs and relatively low marginal costs.
Besides just the issue of under-prescription you should also consider that profit margins are not fixed. If they spent nothing on promotion it is very likely that their sales would suffer terribly. Assuming R&D and other non-promotional overhead is held constant their margins would quickly be reduced into negative territory, which would force them to raise prices or cut back on R&D to make it a viable business (or raise more capital, which would be impossible). The odds are very high that most classes of drugs would cease be economically viable since the few patients that are prescribed a particular new drug in some dire circumstance would not be able to afford the vastly higher prices.
These thoughts are fine and good, but this doesn't change the fact that drugs are produced largely by private US corporations (and a handful of Euro firms...which are increasingly coming to the US) and that they need to cover their primary costs (R&D) and they even, gasp, need to make a profit to ensure continued investment. Until such time that our government, hell ANY government, proves itself capable of developing its own medicines with any reliability, let alone doing them nearly as cost-effectively, I would not want government to meddle with the drug industry model (except, perhaps, in the most extreme of circumstances, like AIDS drugs in the 3rd World).
It is also worth keeping in mind that patents and copyrights have important diferences. A strong copyrights has little chance of colliding with the rights of others to create independently whereas a strong patent necessarily demand significant breadth and these create a significant chance of interfering with independent invention (or at least creates the opportunity for someone to make a credible claim). I support strong patent rights, but I can accept a more nuanced view of these than I can copyrights.
Some people will still buy viagra when it is off patent. However, research has shown that once generics emerge the revenues of the drug companies decline dramatically -- especially when both the customer and the payor have to pay. This is even true with line extensions.
Not terribly relevant, but no, they're not (I know people high up in the foodchain at J&J).
Their "marketing" budget is little understood and vastly overstated by the likes of people on Slashdot. The "marketing" you are thinking of is DTC ads (TV, Magazines, etc) which are only about 1% of revenues (or about 10% of their promotional budget). They spend about 50% of their promotional budget of providing free samples to doctors (which, in turn, doctors give to patients--which are often beneficial) and most of the remaining amount paying their sales reps to promote new drugs.
Pfizer is hardly a representative sample of the average drug company at an average time in recent history. They are probably the most successful drug companies right now because they have a few highly successful blockbuster drugs still on patent. This picture is likely to change for the worse over the next several years as their patents expire and the current pipeline is apt relatively dry.
And this is a meaningless statistic in a heavily R&D driven business. All this means is that their COGS sold, i.e., the to actually manufacture the pills themselves, is about 35% on average. It says nothing of the cost of R&D, licensing, legal/lawsuits, management overhead, and, gasp, even sales (which are important to ANY business).
The 42 billion dollar you cite is "gross profit" which ignores various important operating expenses like: R&D, SG&A/overhead, one time charges, and other important expenses. After these expenses are taken into account the "profit" is roughly 11 billion dollars. Furthermore, it also ignores interest ($471M) and taxes ($3.5B). The actual net income available to shareholders was roughly 8 billion dollars (about 80% less than what you suggest) and this is the most relevant number if you wish to discuss the attractiveness of the businesses and its cost structure. Numbers for the lazy.
Now you might argue that 42B over COGS is only possible in large part because of patents, but then you'd also have to acknowledge that without that 42B dollars a lot of other essential activities like R&D, IT, Legal, mgmt, etc would not be covered. In other words, even if we assume that the shareholders need no profits, and strip them of their 8B dollars, the notion that there are huge savings to be had over the long term by eviscerating the drug companies is not borne out by the numbers.
Wrong. Toyota owns more than ten thousand patents.. What's more, each non-Toyota component in the car typically claims at least several patents, even if not owned by Toyota those patents still spur innovation.
By the way, Redhat (RHT) has profit margin of 18%.
In any event, your argument that we shouldn't enforce laws because "we" were wrong about slavery and therefore we might be wrong about copyright runs contrary to almost any accepted philosophy and legal wisdom. The law must proceed as it is on the books on the presumption that it is correct; law can be changed and challeged in the courts. If you believe the law is unjust, you are free to visibly resist but you must willingly accept your punishment (see anyone from Socrates to MLK Jr). To do otherwise is cowardly and is a greater violance against society.
We are in the United States and we are talking about the rights of US citizens in US territory to violate copyright law. It doesn't get much more cut and dried than this. Russian law is an entirely seperate consideration.
This is, at best, a technicality under Russian law in the case of allofmp3 and is sure to get stomped out soon. Russia stands to lose admission to the WTO if they do not. Furthermore, compulsory licensing would imply that they're actually paying the artists and all evidence suggests that they have not.
Russia's legal system is weak in many areas, not just IP, and they do not have anything close to a healthy economy based innovation and authorship due in no small part to their weak support of IP and the rule of law itself. What's more, I believe that one should have the right to enjoy the fruits of their labor, whether physical or intellectual, so this "law", if that is what you want to call it, is not defensible.
I don't care what it purports itself to be. I care what its impact on political discourse is. If Bill O'Reilly renamed his show to the "a lighthearted entertainment show with a moral-conservative reactionist spin" that wouldn't absolve him of all responsibility for his coverage. It is reasonable to examine the outcome of the show on the viewers (whether through intentional spin or simply aweful coverage). I'm not suggesting that we try to regulate it in any way, just that we perhaps re-think how we talk about these shows.
I don't have the survey at hand, but I have seen polls that suggest that something like ~25% of young voters got most of their 2004 election coverage news from TDS and SNL. I know some young voters like this myself. Even if some of those voters also get "news" from a blog/website heavily slanted towards their favorite political party, they are missing out. I see value in news that at least makes some attempt at providing a more moderate and informed discussion -- if nothing else to present some basic and indisputable facts (not just those that support one view or the other). There have been a number of studies that have shown that people of both political persuasions that just talk to people of their own leanings tended to get more extreme and entrenched in their views (and were more hostile to others), whereas those that talked to people of other political views tended to at least adopt a much more nuanced and open view. I suspect this is at least part of the reason why politics of both stripes has gotten more radical and combative.
To the extent that the Daily Show acts as a replacement for up-to-date news for some of its viewers and to the extent that it embarrasses politicians (or makes them look absurd/extreme) for what would otherwise be sensible and reasonable discourse (leaving aside the balance for a minute) by selective editing and quotation, I have concerns for society at large. Calling it entertainment does not automatically mean it has no negative impact on politics.
Well, maybe, but someone can't pretend they follow the world news by watching Southpark and, regardless, both in and of themselves can leave the viewer/reader in pretty sorry shape as far as balanced coverage of world events and politics goes. Slanted blogs might have their place, but when they are consumed to the exclusion of any balanced news, I suspect they a harmful to our political system.
One, it is the law. Two, numerous economic theory and studies support it. Three, I have argued this issue extensively on slashdot and other places and I do not believe you have a good argument against. Four, one does not need to be the smartest person in the world to determine what is "reasonable". Please refer to the well established legal fiction of the "reasonable man" with its origins in common law. Society would fall apart with such a notion.
Uh, in support of copyright law, I have the support of: the most respected economists; the legal system of virtually every developed country; the US Constition; and the founding fathers... to name a few. It is hardly "just" me.
I hate the sensational/soundbyte news system that we have today. Stewart does a great job of pointing out the absurdity of CNN/FOX/MSNBC/etc (when it suits him at least), but in many ways he is part of that very same system now. Politics has become a game whereby the winners win by making the shortest and simplest statements designed to appeal to their constituency such that they cannot be cut up and taken out of context. The middle and well argued ground has been all but cut out of the media (and I do not think BLOGs particularly help with this either--as they usually target one extreme or the other). Anything controversial is strictly verbotten. It does not pay to try to express a complex-thought to the media or to make meaningful off the cuff remarks because any small mistatement will be thrown back in your face and your actual statements and any nuance in them will not remain intact for the listeners to hear (especially shows like TDS). Sure, many Democratic-leaning* voters may find it less-noticable and less-objectionable, but I suspect that if and when Fox or whomever comes out with the equivalent conservative leaning show there will be increased scrutiny... even if the humor is the same.
* Yes, I recognize he has taken jabs at Kerry and other Democrats, but these usually aren't aimed at policy and certainly not usually at mainstream Democratic policy itself (the fringe stuff, perhaps).
ROFL!! Have you ever talked to anyone that has even tried to farm for a living (not as a hobby)? There is a reason why the small family owned farm is practically extinct today. It takes a lot of skill, know how, equipment, fertilizer, irrigation, etc to make farming work -- nevermind to have it work with the level of efficiency that most people in the US take for granted these days or that existing agriculture occupies most of the most suitable land today. Do you really think a handful of people are going to produce enough food for 300m+ of our population in several years (never mind several weeks)? LOL
What, pray tell, is the "proper" amount of profit for a drug company to make?
And my grandfather only states that compilers are wholly inappropriate because of all the bugs found in software today. Having an unresearched and unsupported opinion hardly makes you qualified to promulgate law.
I'm all for more fundamental research, but this would have almost no impact on the price of drugs as the government does not engage in this kind of applied R&D. Furthermore, if your contention is that the government can and should do this well and that the drug companies are wasting their money of frivilous drugs, then why not allow both to do their own thing independent of each other?
Nonsense.
Firstly, the concept that patients will beat their way to your door or that doctors will prescribe your drug just because you publish evidence in a Journal that your drug statistically saves lives is simply wrong. For instance, it is widely known by cardiovascular experts today that statins have been way under-prescribed. There have been numerous studies that have shown that roughly 1/3 of heart attacks would be prevented if statins were prescribed to high-risk patients alone. This despite the fact that statins were introduced well over 18 years ago for precisely this purpose. The number of high risk patients on statins was just 9% in 1992 (several years after their introduction) and just 19% in 2002. Even after a year after additional studies were performed (e.g., "Adult Treatment Panel III") just 50% of said patients were on the statins. Read it. Virtually every industry advertises especially those with something new to sell and those with very high fixed costs and relatively low marginal costs.
Secondly, you neglect the fact that many doctors today, in particular GPs, are seriously time constrained and are overworked. They do not have the time to read every journal in detail and read enough of the literature to feel comfortable prescribing many new drugs--especially when it comes to comparing it to the alternatives. This is why drug sales reps come around to doctors offices with the latest and most relevant study data, pamphlets for patients, and free samples makes a world of difference. Furthermore, some sales reps are often directly involved with both doctor and patient training and education. Insulin pumps, for instance (a business which I'm intimately fam
There is no doubt that there have been abuses (like there have been in the US), but to argue that the Malaysians and others have not benefited overall from these jobs is simply wrong. If you think you're doing these workers a favor by trying to prevent jobs from migrating (or by trying to mandate US wage standards there), you are deluding yourself.
Furthermore, while I do not know anyone that cheers the outsourcing US manufacturing jobs per se, it is inevitable and many companies simply must do it to compete internationally and domestically.
You argue this without the least bit of understanding of the science and financial realities behind drug development and you ignore the empirical evidence of many successful drugs being developed on patent (and the near absolute lack innovation in countries which don't). The business would simply collapse without patents.
You may also want to consider some empirical studies like this:
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id =932989
It compares EU price controls and their effects on R&D spending vs that of the US.
That is an absurd hypothetical. What if every farmer decided to charge 1 billion dollars per ounce of crop? People would starve! Should be eliminate the free market? Of course not. This would not be profit maximizing activity and ignores the fact that drugs are, in fact, quite affordable relative to the overall costs of development.
And yet our seniors are living longer and healthier lives than ever before despite the growth of diabetes (a major epidemic) and obesity. I'm not saying that things are perfect here, far from it, but that the consequences of government price regulation and/or eviscerating patents would be far more severe over the long term than any short term benefits that we might gain.
Just because Canada and a select number of other countries institute price controls and enjoy a free ride does not mean that major markets like the US can do this without having a severe negative impact on the development of new drugs worldwide (and moreso locally).
Also a large amount of this behavior owes to ignorance of the part of the buyer. Canada forces the brand name drug companies to drop their prices on drugs closer to that of their generic equivalents so that the branded product is priced significantly less in Canada. Many of these buyers do not realize that most of their medications can be purchased from non-branded generics for less than the branded product in Canada (and more often than not even their generics) and that in the vast majority of cases generics are a perfectly acceptable substitute (in some rare cases the formulation isn't consistent and it can make a difference...though doctors will usually indicate this). If you compare the prices of drugs still on patent the difference are appreciably smaller.
In case you don't believe me...
The idea that there is a ton of money to be saved by stripping drug companies of their excess profits is very much flawed. The average profit margin of the drug companies is around 25% (and significantly lower if you look at it over time). This means that you're unlikely to achieve much more than a 25% reduction in average prices on overtime without stripping them of their budgets for R&D and other critical areas that are necessary to sustain the business (yes, even marketing and sales) even if you are to assume that profits are irre
Ridiculous.
Firstly, this case (Lindor) and virtually every recording industry lawsuit only relate to the illegal UPLOADING and SHARING of many seperate copyrighted songs (tens to thousands) -- not mere downloading. Thus the claim that these lawsuits might create a chilling effect on legitimate downloading activity is unreasonable. Even if a user inadvertantly downloads a handful of pirated songs, they have the opportunity to correct it and they can certainly choose whether or not to share those songs if they're not certain about. Furthermore, this argument is even more ludicrous when you consider that in most of these cases the great majority of songs offered on the defendents' P2P programs are obviously pirated. If you have 40 songs available for download and 38 of them are hits belonging to major record labels, there is no plausible excuse.
Secondly, Kazaa and other existing P2P technologies are a lousy way to get legitimate material and they could provide numerous mechanisms to remove pirated material. The only area where technologies like Kazaa provide any advantage is as a place to download pirated material, because it is harder to police than most and provides an environment conducive to sharing. If you want to find legitimate non-pirated material you can often find it on the artists own website or other such sources that provide some reasonable assurances that it is legitimate.
If P2P/bandwidth concerns are your hangup, P2P networks could easily adapt their software to uniquely identify copyrighted material (or even exclude it from being shared in the first place) and, at the same time, provide better search and downloading of material. For instance, they could design their software to take a unique signature of each file on the network and have anyone that introduces the song to vouch for it. In the loosest scenario, RIAA could identify any music that belongs to them and forward the violating signatures to the P2P network manager for removal/sharing-ban. This would have the added advantage in that it would give the operator the legal coverage needed to operate central servers (like Napster) which is unquestionably superior to the distributed designs found in Kazaa (which limit the scope of searches dramatically... not to mention create a lot of clutter due to lack of proper naming/metadeta). Of course, most of these networks want to do no such thing because they know that the demand for legitimate material is much much smaller as compared to pirated stuff.
Vote with your feet. You don't absolutely have to buy any particular software package -- especially those few with onerous EULAs. If, for instance, Microsoft Windows' EULA is too much for you, then use Mac, Linux, BSD, etc. Please tell me the specific parts of the EULAs that you object to.
Arguing on the internet doesn't automatically make you an informed citizen. This has been made abundantly clear from listening to your "arguments."
No, that is a seperate argument. Your assumption that the legal costs should never exceed the costs of what is presumably lost (never mind it is only what you