Once a government succeeds in destroying one patent, the protection afforded by a patent is destroyed.
We aren't talking about destroying even a single patent, we are talking about reducing the privilages that a few patents entail. The privilage of having a monopoly is only dropped in some parts of the world under some specific circumstances. Other patents are completely uneffected. Using your reasoning, we would think that the laws against murder are completely distroyed when a few people are found innocent due to extenuating circumstances. They aren't. Only when the same circumstances come up will the new case law be relivant. Similarly, only when emergencies are occuring will the reasons that I'm applying be relivant to the privilages implied by future patents.
I realize you do not care about this type of thing, but what you need to realize is that the whole reason a company spends billions of dollars in research is to create the temporary competitive advantage afforded by a patent.
Thanks ever so much for telling my what I care about. But you are still not addressing the issue. What I'm talking about will not effect the vast majority of how things now operate. Your FUD about the death of research is still just melodrama until you can show that such limited changes will actually have such effects. Perhaps some common sense does show that large changes (like the destruction of all patents) does kill all research, whatever, it is still off topic. We are discussing small changes that have large positive effects in other realms.
Are you then arguing that nobody in Brazil has been able to purchase these drugs?
Nope, I'm arguing that some of the many people that need the relivant drugs are unable to purchace them (or arrainge for the same by others) at anything but the cost of manufacture. I didn't mention any specific country at all because AIDS is quite global, and this situation will only spread faster if we don't combat it full force.
And even for those who do not have the resources necessary to purchase the drugs in question, I find it hard to believe that they have never used an antihistamine or pain suppressant.
Lovely, "Sorry you can't afford any of the AIDS fighting cocktail to keep you alive, but we've got some tylenol and some prozak. Would you like one of those?" Are you trying to be insensitive?
Oh and I didn't say the people in question would be better off if the drug companies had never existed. I said they would be as well off or better, if the drug companies that hold the patents in question were to cease to exist now. Quite a difference.
Is no one talking about taking away all patent priviliges? What else is implied when a government threatens to take a patent away?
I would like to point out that in the first sentence you use the word "all", and in the second you use the article "a". This disparity alone shows that you implicitly recognize that there are other patents that will still be around. Furthermore, if a patent is recognized over most of the earth and not recognized in a few countries, then it hasn't been totally taken away. These two considerations show that, far from taking away all patent priviliges, the topic is really a reduction of priviliges to a single category of patents.
Moving on, I'm a bit confused by a group of people doing all they can to save the lives of others being characterized as "thugs". I'm also amused at the irony of referencing Rand just before denying the charge of being melodramatic.
Remember, without these pharmaceutical companies, these people would have no hope whatsoever.
It is quite true that, if these companies had never existed, then they would have less hope than they have now. However, it is also true that, if these companies ceased to exist today, then the people in question would have at least the same amount of hope, and probably more (note, I'm not proposing the companies be dissolved).
As for the bit about the term "priviliges", I believe another poster has taken that point us quite well.
I suppose these patients have a "right" to the hard work of these companies.
No, they have a right to try to live, and their governments have the right to help them try, to change their patent law, and to dissolve the priviliges of a patent in times of an emergency, a title for which the AIDS epidemic qualifies.
Yes indeed, the pharmacutical industry has developed a great many wonderful things, and I would be quite happy for them to continue doing so. I would dispute the use of the term "given", since they have sold us these things. Indeed, their reluctance to give something away to save lives is the very reason for this discussion.
I'm not sure why you read me as being against corporations, but let me assure you that I don't think of them, in general, as evil. Indeed, I would say that their total lack of moral attributes is another reason for this discussion (or at least for the manner in which it is most naturally framed).
If you read my post above and the one on k5 that I reference, you should be able to see that I'm not wanting pharmacutical companies to make no profit. If I come off as being otherwise, please let me know where.
And I don't see how Nader is relivant (maybe this is some personal angst that you have).
Quite right. Only instead of, "they should be thrown out the window," I would advocte use of the more accurate phrase, "their extension should be reduced enough to fix the problem." To those on the side of reducing patient privileges, these easily stand in for one another; to those that haven't been convinced, there is a great deal of difference. It doesn't help to use polarizing/inflamatory phrasing.
In reference to the AIDS plague, no one is talking about taking away all patient privileges for all pharmaceuticals. Reducing the privilages a bit in some very particular and well-defined situations won't bring the whole industry to a halt. The large number of people that will die fullfills the burden of proof on the side of reducing the privileges, your burden of proof is a detailed economic impact study of such a limited change in the system. Until you have that in hand, spreading FUD about the end of the industry is unjustified.
For more of my take on this issue, see this post on k5.
... just find a nice album getter like Scoundrel (can't tell you about the better one I know about, blame the RIAA). It is a little bot that searches for you and gets all the songs. Searching for albums becomes easier on the net than in real life.
I like the plan, just have a couple of points. If the fueler ships don't have people, then getting them there fast isn't important. Sending them fast is more expensive than sending them slow. So adjust the schedual to send them before the manned ships, they can still arrive afterwards, that part doesn't matter.
Also, if you are planning to have an actual colony, it would been nice to start throwing supplies on slow trajectories as soon as possible. The gravity wells of the moon and earth can help with this and bring the fuel costs down a bit.
You are thinking way too top down. The internet helps build communities in a bottom-up way. Instead of forming a big action committee, Form a small voting/music/freedom commune. Pool ownership of music and any other information that you buy. And institute vote trading type things.
Then each of these little groups can talk to a few of its peers. Before long there is a big strange graph of these things all talking and linking up. Then they might have some political power.
This is one of the strangest bits of visual entertainment I have ever seen, full of sound and fury signifiying what? I haven't a clue. But without the internet, it would very likely not have ever been, and I certainly wouldn't have seen it. Thus it is empirical evidence that the net is can still be as, ummm, 'impressive' as ever.
Maybe we could try a long term strategy. Pay off law professors to teach the new gaggle of fresh lawyers to see things from certain sides. Let it trickle out into the system.
Professors are cheaper to bribe than politicians.
Re:Lower sales for the monopolist
on
$1200 Cheap!
·
· Score: 1
I so agree with the bit about pushing new machines as a way to upgrade. Everyone I've talked to about this has been quite keen to have some well labeled interchangable parts so that their machine can be easily upgraded. Many requested color coding so they could do things themselves (but thought that paying a local nerdy teen a couple of ten spots would be just as good).
People want nice looking racks with easy component upgradeablity.
You mean you want to just send them all of our valuable intellectual property? What if they aren't as open with theirs and we get nothing out of the deal? Are you going to include some sort of EUL? "By decoding the rest of this message you agree not to come and eat humans or use the technology described within to further your own interstellar kingdom in a way that harms the interests of humans...."
Another way the example could go
on
Taming the Web
·
· Score: 1
Jimmy scans all of Bobby's e-mail and deletes the e-mail containing DeCSS.
Bobby goes to jail and doesn't get to try again for five years.
Some friends of mine did the same with our residential high school back in the old Doom days (lots of levels). We honored cool people with neat monsters and nice weapons in their rooms, uncool people were stupid monsters. The RA's were the big boss type monsters that one had to kill to move on. Quite seditious, now that I think about it. I wonder what some of the people riled up about school shootings would have thought.
Re:Microsoft should be sued
on
Code Red III
·
· Score: 1
If you are an owner responsible for any car, regardless of the manufacturer, it's your job to be aware. However, that does not allow the manufacturer to abdicate all responsibility for the results of others using their vehicles. Is there a principled difference between these two domains? Perhaps software makers just like their current lack of responsibility; I did too. I was also a child, as were the other production industries, but I grew up and so have they (to some extent).
I wondered about that point too. Seems that limiting federal funding to projects that only use those preexisting cell lines is pretty much the same thing as creating artificial scarcity on an otherwise completely abundant resource. I would love to see a well done "follow the money" piece on this angle. I wonder if the intersection of the set of people that will benifit monetarily and the set of people from which W. got advice is nonempty.
I don't really consider writing a book, some articles, and exchanging e-mails as experience with 15 y.o.s. Raising children and spending a lot of time with them (i.e. 24/7/365 of dealing with the good and bad) will make you more of an authority on that one, but that's just MHO. It's a real distant view that you're talking from, Jon.
Of course it is a distant view. When dealing with such large domains, any good view needs to be from a distance. You admit yourself that such close quarters with a young human would only give you knowledge of that particular one (at least I think that is what you meant with your wording, there is some room for other interpretations).
Watching a single molecule for years wouldn't make one an expert on chemisty, nor would understanding a single teenager be of much help when trying to understand teenagers as a class. Katz is making a claim to a meger bit of understanding about the class of teenagers (restricted by his own admission), not to extensive knowledge about any one teenager in particular. If Katz has indeed had email conversations with several hundred teenagers (assuming some substantive exchanges), then his sample set extends beyond that of the average parent, and provided he has actually learned a good deal of the patterns in this larger data set, he is more an expert about teens than the parents.
They still eat food...
Wow, and people say that Katz reaches pretty far to find his "patterns". Jeez, bacteria eat food, but trying to understand how better locomotion effected lifeforms in their pursuit of that basic need certainly has merit. The same is true of looking for the effects that modern technology has on the patterns of behavior of teenaged humans.
You've found me out. I mush shamefully admit that I have only paid five different artists (can't remember about a couple of others, I may have just thought about it and then forgotten that I didn't follow through) in one form or other. I would have paid several others, except that I didn't like the shirts, I don't need another mug, or other such things. Is it any excuse to say that I only read about 10 or 11 online comics. Is a 50% paying rate enough for your highness? (I don't know if you meant to, but you sound quite condesending.)
The answer to the "how much" question varies wildly. I don't know how much some made off of the stuff I bought, but the others averaged, I'm guessing, somewhere between 10 and 15$. I plan of giving more as my meger grad-student budget (minus some charity and Good Organization money) and my faulty memory (I've started using a "email your future self" service to fix that) allows.
Many use the sort of question you asked to justify not giving themselves, I hope that isn't the case with you and that I have misread your tone. Still, my rule of thumb is to, as much as I can, substitute worry about how much others pay with worry more about how much I pay.
This primitive agreement brought to you by the poor state of slashdot moderation. Had they trusted me with a "I agree" button, I could have used it without using the bandwidth of a whole comment.
... a pretty good device to graft into a wearable setup. It talks to lots of other things and has plenty of storage. In the meantime, if it can talk to Palm OS, I dare say I would love this device.
... which is why I only share songs that I got via downloading. I assume that the other guy/gal is in the right. And quite frankly I'm shocked, just shocked that anyone out there is doing other wise! I consciously choose to assume the better of my fellow man.
Yeah, sure it is a pretty thin defense, but between being price-gouged for years and giving money to artists via Fairtunes I don't feel the need for much of a defense.
Oh, and I consider all my CD's as owned not just by me, but also by everyone jointly. I'll even send you one if you pay for processing and shipping.:)
Slashdot Mirror
Oh and I didn't say the people in question would be better off if the drug companies had never existed. I said they would be as well off or better, if the drug companies that hold the patents in question were to cease to exist now. Quite a difference.
They need do no such thing, ever hear of a balloon? Blow it up before you go in the bar; use it to trick the device after you come out.
Moving on, I'm a bit confused by a group of people doing all they can to save the lives of others being characterized as "thugs". I'm also amused at the irony of referencing Rand just before denying the charge of being melodramatic.
It is quite true that, if these companies had never existed, then they would have less hope than they have now. However, it is also true that, if these companies ceased to exist today, then the people in question would have at least the same amount of hope, and probably more (note, I'm not proposing the companies be dissolved).As for the bit about the term "priviliges", I believe another poster has taken that point us quite well.
No, they have a right to try to live, and their governments have the right to help them try, to change their patent law, and to dissolve the priviliges of a patent in times of an emergency, a title for which the AIDS epidemic qualifies.Good day.
I'm not sure why you read me as being against corporations, but let me assure you that I don't think of them, in general, as evil. Indeed, I would say that their total lack of moral attributes is another reason for this discussion (or at least for the manner in which it is most naturally framed).
If you read my post above and the one on k5 that I reference, you should be able to see that I'm not wanting pharmacutical companies to make no profit. If I come off as being otherwise, please let me know where.
And I don't see how Nader is relivant (maybe this is some personal angst that you have).
In reference to the AIDS plague, no one is talking about taking away all patient privileges for all pharmaceuticals. Reducing the privilages a bit in some very particular and well-defined situations won't bring the whole industry to a halt. The large number of people that will die fullfills the burden of proof on the side of reducing the privileges, your burden of proof is a detailed economic impact study of such a limited change in the system. Until you have that in hand, spreading FUD about the end of the industry is unjustified.
For more of my take on this issue, see this post on k5.
If I ever have to put up with a corporate working environment, I hope I am luck enough to work for someone that can understand the points you make.
--
Member of the Music Collective.
Also, if you are planning to have an actual colony, it would been nice to start throwing supplies on slow trajectories as soon as possible. The gravity wells of the moon and earth can help with this and bring the fuel costs down a bit.
Then each of these little groups can talk to a few of its peers. Before long there is a big strange graph of these things all talking and linking up. Then they might have some political power.
Good day.
Professors are cheaper to bribe than politicians.
People want nice looking racks with easy component upgradeablity.
Some friends of mine did the same with our residential high school back in the old Doom days (lots of levels). We honored cool people with neat monsters and nice weapons in their rooms, uncool people were stupid monsters. The RA's were the big boss type monsters that one had to kill to move on. Quite seditious, now that I think about it. I wonder what some of the people riled up about school shootings would have thought.
If you are an owner responsible for any car, regardless of the manufacturer, it's your job to be aware. However, that does not allow the manufacturer to abdicate all responsibility for the results of others using their vehicles. Is there a principled difference between these two domains? Perhaps software makers just like their current lack of responsibility; I did too. I was also a child, as were the other production industries, but I grew up and so have they (to some extent).
I wondered about that point too. Seems that limiting federal funding to projects that only use those preexisting cell lines is pretty much the same thing as creating artificial scarcity on an otherwise completely abundant resource. I would love to see a well done "follow the money" piece on this angle. I wonder if the intersection of the set of people that will benifit monetarily and the set of people from which W. got advice is nonempty.
Right on; and to think, all of this entertainment for the price of a few pairs of dollars.
Of course it is a distant view. When dealing with such large domains, any good view needs to be from a distance. You admit yourself that such close quarters with a young human would only give you knowledge of that particular one (at least I think that is what you meant with your wording, there is some room for other interpretations).
Watching a single molecule for years wouldn't make one an expert on chemisty, nor would understanding a single teenager be of much help when trying to understand teenagers as a class. Katz is making a claim to a meger bit of understanding about the class of teenagers (restricted by his own admission), not to extensive knowledge about any one teenager in particular. If Katz has indeed had email conversations with several hundred teenagers (assuming some substantive exchanges), then his sample set extends beyond that of the average parent, and provided he has actually learned a good deal of the patterns in this larger data set, he is more an expert about teens than the parents.
Wow, and people say that Katz reaches pretty far to find his "patterns". Jeez, bacteria eat food, but trying to understand how better locomotion effected lifeforms in their pursuit of that basic need certainly has merit. The same is true of looking for the effects that modern technology has on the patterns of behavior of teenaged humans.
The answer to the "how much" question varies wildly. I don't know how much some made off of the stuff I bought, but the others averaged, I'm guessing, somewhere between 10 and 15$. I plan of giving more as my meger grad-student budget (minus some charity and Good Organization money) and my faulty memory (I've started using a "email your future self" service to fix that) allows.
Many use the sort of question you asked to justify not giving themselves, I hope that isn't the case with you and that I have misread your tone. Still, my rule of thumb is to, as much as I can, substitute worry about how much others pay with worry more about how much I pay.
Yeah, sure it is a pretty thin defense, but between being price-gouged for years and giving money to artists via Fairtunes I don't feel the need for much of a defense.
Oh, and I consider all my CD's as owned not just by me, but also by everyone jointly. I'll even send you one if you pay for processing and shipping. :)