"As stated before, the AIDS problem is caused by a broken patent ENFORCEMENT"
Nonsense, you are assuming that the technology wouldn't have been invented anyhow. Prove it. Since you're the one that wishes to impose massive restrictions on what people can copy, the burden of proof is on you to demonstrate that it's worth it.
The point is that the damage caused by killing collaberation is far greater than the knowledge gaind by open patents. Which, btw, 95% of patents are incramental improvements on existing technology and understanding that likely would have been invented anyhow.
No, the first airbag technology was patented in 1953, and nobody offered them in the marketplace (or did further R&D) till 1973 after the patent ran out. Airbags were held back 20 years, exactly as I said. http://inventors.about.com/od/astartinventions/a/a ir_bags.htm. What you're talking about didn't happen till over a decade later, and is a totally different issue. Also, 40,000 people in the US alone per year get killed in auto accidents, 40000 * 20 = 800000, and that's just the US, not the globe. But I digress, would it make you feel better if that means 100000 died needlessly instead of a million?
Also, as I said above, one of the consequences of patents is that researchers are strongly discouraged against collaberation because a competitor could build off the research, get a patent, and lock everyone else out. That not only drives up R&D by several orders of magnitude, but also results in more secrecy with patents, not less.
And could you please explain to me how 15 million people in Africa suffering from AIDS who are lawfully being denied generics that people in India have ready access to is anything other than genocidial? I think the slavery analogy is very appropiate. The "it's a property" argument is bullshit. The "it's the law" argument is bullshit, the "I have no incentive" argument is bullshit, the "great wealth of commerce and business" argument is bullshit. So what other justifications for patents are there.... bullshit!
One of the consequences of patents is that researchers are strongly discouraged against collaberation because a competitor could build off the research, get a patent, and lock everyone else out. That not only drives up R&D by several orders of magnitude, but also results in more secrecy with patents, not less.
If a King controled peoples free speech and that caused great evil, people would use that a clear reason to justify killing his ability to control any speech. Unfortunately with patents we see abuses causing hell everywhere we look, yet there is no desire to kill them, only gently modify them. Every time the abuse gets worse, harsher, more stupid, and more evil, but yet still no general desire to kill patents. This behavior is not rational. It's like the people who wanted to keep slavery in a kinder form so that the free states could get along with the slave states. But patents are worse than even slavery, like how they held back safety devices like airbags and antilock brakes in cars for 20 years while millions died that didn't need to. Or AIDS drugs in Africa.
The truth is that it is customary for companies to get frivilous patents if only to have leverage for counter suits and to get in patent cross licensing agreements to avoid harassment. It's rather hypocritical to judge Microsoft in this context while the masses still stupidly and foolishly cling to the notion that any patent is just.
Look it's not only the case in India, but in Germany before they had patents (aspirin), and in Italy before they had patents. And Ironically, even the US, before we started to respect European patents. It is well documented. The decline of medical R&D after patents were implemented is also well documented. You're the one that is ignorant, where's your prof otherwise! You're the one who wants to impose these massive restrictions on what people can share and copy. The burden of proof is on you pal.
"You cannot invalidate my argument by painting it with slavery"
Oh yes I can. The "it's the law" argument is bullshit. The "it's a property" argument is bullshit. The "it's an incentive" argument is bullshit. The "it's behind the great wealth of US industry and commerce" is bullshit. So what other arguments do you have left.... "bullshit"! Those millions in Africa who die of AIDS while companies were forbidden to sell generics (that were legal in India BTW) absolutely had their rights violated. Patents are not in the same ballpark, they are worse.
"People have a right to the control over their creations offered by patents..."
Bullshit. Not even the creators of patent saw it as a basic right, that's why they have expiration date (for now). People have a right to use knowledge that they gain freely without fraud or coercion and to use that knowledge without suffering coercion.
"Understand, I'm not arguing that the patent process is perfect "
Like slavery, people could see all the shit, but couldn't bring themselves to be truthful. Sad souls indeed.
India is kicking our ass, and have no patents on pharmacuticals at all (but they do on manufacturing process). Also, they are a tool of violence, just like slavery is. Sure some masters are nice to their slaves, and some people are reasonable about patetns, but that's bullshit. You are presuming that people have a right to that kind of control to begin with. I wouldn't be such a hard ass on patetns if I hadn't lived it.
Technically you're both correct, but in practice this is crazy. Patents are murderous to the point that they are genocidial and people are going around calling them a protection, a property, and an incentive. In that context, how could anyone complain that I sound like I'm spewing propaganda! Fine, I came off wrong, but shit - but this is nothing like the tidle wave of "incentive,protection,property" crap I get rammed down my throat on a regular basis. I'm sorry, but maybe someone needs to be in other peoples face about it. Does anyone think the patent situation is going to get better? Well, when patents come knocking on your door to kick you ass, I doubt you'll think I "propagandized" enough.
They tricked my mother into getting hooked on a patented drug (fosimax) that killed her normal bone growing mechanisim, so now she needs them to stay alive and they are making my life at work and career a fucking hell. Maybe I have a right to be an asshole.
Oh, I don't necessarily disagree with the message, only with the manner in which it was expressed.
I apoligize then, I didn't mean to come off like that. It's just that I feel the same way, people say... it's a property... it's a property... it's a property... it's an incentive.... it's an incentive... it's an incentive... it's protection... it's protection... it's protection... it's protection....
I wasn't trying to be rude, but I just get so sick and tired of it.
I don't care if I got modded down, I've been posting for nearly a decade with thousands of posts and have plenty of "karma". But because of that I also recognize bullshit and game playing when I see it. Patnets are crap, they deserve to be treated like crap, and your games aren't going to make me sit down and shut up about it.
Hypocrite. Fine, then show me that I'm wrong when I said that patents stopped the generic manufacture of AIDS drugs in Africa and the death of a million people. Show me that I'm wrong when I said that patents held back airbags and antilock brakes in cars for 20 years while millions died. Show me that I'm wrong when I said that patents punish collaberation and so drive up R&D costs, because companies don't want competitors to get a patent that can be used to lock them out. Well, you didn't.
It hasn't gone unnoticed that the people who bitterly wined about it couldn't make a counter claim, why? Because they know that if they claim that it's "property", or that it "protects" inventors, or that it "incentivizes" high cost R&D, they would be called on their BS. So their only option left was to wine and attack me personally. Well, fine. I take it as a compliment, but the parent point is still valid and deserves to be recognized as such.
Actually it would be best of all if patents didn't exist at all. Patents are not an incentive, not a property, but a tool of coercion, they are a tool of violence. If your factory has an invention that you don't have permission to use, then men with guns have a "rigt" to visit you and rip it out. This tool of violence was responsible for lawsuits in the world court to halt the manufacture of generic AIDS drugs, and the resulting death of millions of people in Africa. This tool of violence was used to hold back air-bags and anti lock breaks in cars for nearly twenty years while over a million people died who didn't need to. This tool of violence is responsible for every industry and every manufactuor having incompatable parts and the massive costs and enviromental damage that leads to. This tool of violence is repsonsible for whole classes of drugs that have bizare chemichal side effects, that needn't be there except for the sake of patentability. This tool of violence saddles nearly every high tech startup with tens if not hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of protective legal manuvers before they even sell a product. Almost every technology market has a 20 year lag time between discovery and marketability, hmmmm why is that?
This tool of violence tends to punish and isolate researchers, because ones who collaberate are punished - then people say "well ge golly, why are those inventors such lonely tinkerers?" This tool of violence tends to drive up R&D costs by orders of magnitude, then people say "well ge golly, why is pharmacutical R&D so expensive?" Well dammit.
I like games and some movies too, and I'm sure that some of the things that I really like simply wouldn't be here without copyright, but dammit, don't sell out our freedom and liberty in the information age for the sake of a game or a song or show. If it was about anything less, I might be OK with it, but it isn't. This is an all or nothing game and they know it. This is about control of information in the information age.
There is no equivlancy between propoerty and "intellectual property" other than a stupid name. It's wrong that it's illegal, which is why it's not only a right to copy, but IMHO a duty.
You could say the emperor has no clothes. They go around pretending that their monopoly control over information distriubtion is the physical and moral equivilancy as any property right. It's not only immoral, but outright vicious against progress in the information age and spit in the face on "real" culture vs hollywood manufactured culture.
"Doing something that is perceived as "criminal" and getting away with it is also very attractive."
It is even more attractive when doing something that is legally criminal is morally the high ground. Then you are not only gaining, but protecting others too.
"We are looking at a lot of people being out of work as a result. Not the stars, but..."
I disagree. The need for people in media will always be there. When you kill the copyright cartel, that will force the market to center around information services instead of information controls. It's just like Linux. Linux taking over the datacenter space caused all that money that was being directed toward Microsoft, to be directed toward software related services. It was a painfull adjustment, but it still caused a boom for developer demand in that sector.
Like most government programs, they start out with nice intentions but fail terribly when implemented. The US doesn't have an education service. Maybe we have a mandatory babysitting service, or perhaps a temporary incarceration service, or even a parent/youth entertainment service, but not an education service. The thing that is most sickening though is that no matter how badly education coerced at other peoples expense fails, ther are sill mobs who cling to the concept as if their very life depended on it. It's like communisim, even after the murder of 100 million people, ther are still people who cling to this failed ideology. These people are sick, just sickening.
The grandparent is not flaimbait. Patents and copyrights (by definition) force the market to center around the control value of innovation instead of the service value. Now all of a sudden people wonder why there are so many incoherent solutions, well WTF? The notion that invention and innovation would dry up without them is simply false and ignorant. Lawyers, buearucoracies, and governments are good at controling things, inventors are good at inventing things and providing solutions. Patents and copyrights do not help inventors. Maybe they help one or two every once in awhile, but other than that they are crap.
The other ponts are poor. Should we say that it is OK for a king to control peoples speech as long as he is reasonable about it? No, he has no right to that kind of control at all and any abuses are fair gaim to use as proof of that. Failing to associate the problems caused by copyright and patent to their nature is irrational. All those abuses you describe are simply copyright and patent being brought to their logical conclusion, it only takes a little common sense to see that. Copyrights and patents are not incentive, not property, but government imposed controls on invention and information that have no place in a free market or a free society.
The simple shocking ugly truth is that 90% of the problems in the IT industry are caused specifically because of proprietary crap being rammed down peoples throat. Get rid of copyrights and patents (which are a fradulent property right and incentive to begin with), and this problem would be solved in 5 seconds flat.
Are they going for a patnet or do they have one? If so it is guaranteed that they are either full of shit, or will be so high priced that it won't be worth it.
YES! You see, the music industry has this greedy scheme: Get DRM on all devices and then slowly close the door on all free formats. The only problem is that Apple decided to screw the screwers. They put DRM on iTunes that only they could use in addition non DRM formats to ensure wide distribution and seize the marketplace.
Now the RIAA and the copyright cartel have a huge problem. If they beat down on Apple, then Apple may just say "well screw you, we'll just disable any DRM and all music will be free" - ruining their plan to close the doors. However, if they don't beat down on Apple, then Apple will be the DRM master, also runining their greedy plans to be the DRM masters themselves.
The RIAA and the music industry are like the Mexican Army. You see, the Mexican Army (mid 1800) had better equiptment, more men, and better training than the US Army, but the US Army was albe to waltz in and kick ass because none of the Mexican generals trusted each other enough to work together. That's why the western half of America today belongs to the US and not Mexico. Well the same is true with DRM, they will kill each other before they will help their peers at their expense.
Your assertion that you have some "right".... is just that - an assertion
Hypocrite, IP "rights" are the only bogus assertion around here.
... if a company spends e.g. $1 billion dollars...
... on importing slaves, and then if someone "stole" those slaves by freeing them, then I would say tough shit, that's the punishment you get for imposing false property rights.
...IP and copyright protection make sense and have a rational and moral component...
Why don't you just way, "well it's OK for the King to choose what people are allowed to say as long as it makes sense and has a rational and moral component". And the appropiate response would be. FU, pull your head out and use the God given brain you were given to take things to their "rational" conclusion.
Slashdot Mirror
"As stated before, the AIDS problem is caused by a broken patent ENFORCEMENT"
Nonsense, you are assuming that the technology wouldn't have been invented anyhow. Prove it. Since you're the one that wishes to impose massive restrictions on what people can copy, the burden of proof is on you to demonstrate that it's worth it.
The point is that the damage caused by killing collaberation is far greater than the knowledge gaind by open patents. Which, btw, 95% of patents are incramental improvements on existing technology and understanding that likely would have been invented anyhow.
No, the first airbag technology was patented in 1953, and nobody offered them in the marketplace (or did further R&D) till 1973 after the patent ran out. Airbags were held back 20 years, exactly as I said. http://inventors.about.com/od/astartinventions/a/a ir_bags.htm. What you're talking about didn't happen till over a decade later, and is a totally different issue. Also, 40,000 people in the US alone per year get killed in auto accidents, 40000 * 20 = 800000, and that's just the US, not the globe. But I digress, would it make you feel better if that means 100000 died needlessly instead of a million?
.... bullshit!
Also, as I said above, one of the consequences of patents is that researchers are strongly discouraged against collaberation because a competitor could build off the research, get a patent, and lock everyone else out. That not only drives up R&D by several orders of magnitude, but also results in more secrecy with patents, not less.
And could you please explain to me how 15 million people in Africa suffering from AIDS who are lawfully being denied generics that people in India have ready access to is anything other than genocidial? I think the slavery analogy is very appropiate. The "it's a property" argument is bullshit. The "it's the law" argument is bullshit, the "I have no incentive" argument is bullshit, the "great wealth of commerce and business" argument is bullshit. So what other justifications for patents are there
One of the consequences of patents is that researchers are strongly discouraged against collaberation because a competitor could build off the research, get a patent, and lock everyone else out. That not only drives up R&D by several orders of magnitude, but also results in more secrecy with patents, not less.
If a King controled peoples free speech and that caused great evil, people would use that a clear reason to justify killing his ability to control any speech. Unfortunately with patents we see abuses causing hell everywhere we look, yet there is no desire to kill them, only gently modify them. Every time the abuse gets worse, harsher, more stupid, and more evil, but yet still no general desire to kill patents. This behavior is not rational. It's like the people who wanted to keep slavery in a kinder form so that the free states could get along with the slave states. But patents are worse than even slavery, like how they held back safety devices like airbags and antilock brakes in cars for 20 years while millions died that didn't need to. Or AIDS drugs in Africa.
The truth is that it is customary for companies to get frivilous patents if only to have leverage for counter suits and to get in patent cross licensing agreements to avoid harassment. It's rather hypocritical to judge Microsoft in this context while the masses still stupidly and foolishly cling to the notion that any patent is just.
He'll probably blame that on greedy capitalists and a lack of government regulation too.
Look it's not only the case in India, but in Germany before they had patents (aspirin), and in Italy before they had patents. And Ironically, even the US, before we started to respect European patents. It is well documented. The decline of medical R&D after patents were implemented is also well documented. You're the one that is ignorant, where's your prof otherwise! You're the one who wants to impose these massive restrictions on what people can share and copy. The burden of proof is on you pal.
.... "bullshit"! Those millions in Africa who die of AIDS while companies were forbidden to sell generics
..."
"You cannot invalidate my argument by painting it with slavery"
Oh yes I can. The "it's the law" argument is bullshit. The "it's a property" argument is bullshit. The "it's an incentive" argument is bullshit. The "it's behind the great wealth of US industry and commerce" is bullshit. So what other arguments do you have left
(that were legal in India BTW) absolutely had their rights violated. Patents are not in the same ballpark, they are worse.
"People have a right to the control over their creations offered by patents
Bullshit. Not even the creators of patent saw it as a basic right, that's why they have expiration date (for now). People have a right to use knowledge that they gain freely without fraud or coercion and to use that knowledge without suffering coercion.
"Understand, I'm not arguing that the patent process is perfect "
Like slavery, people could see all the shit, but couldn't bring themselves to be truthful. Sad souls indeed.
http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/articleshow/77 4168.cms
India is kicking our ass, and have no patents on pharmacuticals at all (but they do on manufacturing process). Also, they are a tool of violence, just like slavery is. Sure some masters are nice to their slaves, and some people are reasonable about patetns, but that's bullshit. You are presuming that people have a right to that kind of control to begin with. I wouldn't be such a hard ass on patetns if I hadn't lived it.
Technically you're both correct, but in practice this is crazy. Patents are murderous to the point that they are genocidial and people are going around calling them a protection, a property, and an incentive. In that context, how could anyone complain that I sound like I'm spewing propaganda! Fine, I came off wrong, but shit - but this is nothing like the tidle wave of "incentive,protection,property" crap I get rammed down my throat on a regular basis. I'm sorry, but maybe someone needs to be in other peoples face about it. Does anyone think the patent situation is going to get better? Well, when patents come knocking on your door to kick you ass, I doubt you'll think I "propagandized" enough.
They tricked my mother into getting hooked on a patented drug (fosimax) that killed her normal bone growing mechanisim, so now she needs them to stay alive and they are making my life at work and career a fucking hell. Maybe I have a right to be an asshole.
I apoligize then, I didn't mean to come off like that. It's just that I feel the same way, people say ... it's a property ... it's a property ... it's a property ... it's an incentive .... it's an incentive ... it's an incentive ... it's protection ... it's protection ... it's protection ... it's protection ....
I wasn't trying to be rude, but I just get so sick and tired of it.
I find that to be a thoroughly depressing response, see reply to the post above yours. Yeah, you're wrong allright.
Hypocrite. Fine, then show me that I'm wrong when I said that patents stopped the generic manufacture of AIDS drugs in Africa and the death of a million people. Show me that I'm wrong when I said that patents held back airbags and antilock brakes in cars for 20 years while millions died. Show me that I'm wrong when I said that patents punish collaberation and so drive up R&D costs, because companies don't want competitors to get a patent that can be used to lock them out. Well, you didn't.
There was no reason for the parent post to be http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=218926&cid=177 69878 modded down
It hasn't gone unnoticed that the people who bitterly wined about it couldn't make a counter claim, why? Because they know that if they claim that it's "property", or that it "protects" inventors, or that it "incentivizes" high cost R&D, they would be called on their BS. So their only option left was to wine and attack me personally. Well, fine. I take it as a compliment, but the parent point is still valid and deserves to be recognized as such.
Actually it would be best of all if patents didn't exist at all. Patents are not an incentive, not a property, but a tool of coercion, they are a tool of violence. If your factory has an invention that you don't have permission to use, then men with guns have a "rigt" to visit you and rip it out. This tool of violence was responsible for lawsuits in the world court to halt the manufacture of generic AIDS drugs, and the resulting death of millions of people in Africa. This tool of violence was used to hold back air-bags and anti lock breaks in cars for nearly twenty years while over a million people died who didn't need to. This tool of violence is responsible for every industry and every manufactuor having incompatable parts and the massive costs and enviromental damage that leads to. This tool of violence is repsonsible for whole classes of drugs that have bizare chemichal side effects, that needn't be there except for the sake of patentability. This tool of violence saddles nearly every high tech startup with tens if not hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of protective legal manuvers before they even sell a product. Almost every technology market has a 20 year lag time between discovery and marketability, hmmmm why is that?
This tool of violence tends to punish and isolate researchers, because ones who collaberate are punished - then people say "well ge golly, why are those inventors such lonely tinkerers?" This tool of violence tends to drive up R&D costs by orders of magnitude, then people say "well ge golly, why is pharmacutical R&D so expensive?" Well dammit.
I like games and some movies too, and I'm sure that some of the things that I really like simply wouldn't be here without copyright, but dammit, don't sell out our freedom and liberty in the information age for the sake of a game or a song or show. If it was about anything less, I might be OK with it, but it isn't. This is an all or nothing game and they know it. This is about control of information in the information age.
There is no equivlancy between propoerty and "intellectual property" other than a stupid name. It's wrong that it's illegal, which is why it's not only a right to copy, but IMHO a duty.
You could say the emperor has no clothes. They go around pretending that their monopoly control over information distriubtion is the physical and moral equivilancy as any property right. It's not only immoral, but outright vicious against progress in the information age and spit in the face on "real" culture vs hollywood manufactured culture.
"Doing something that is perceived as "criminal" and getting away with it is also very attractive."
..."
It is even more attractive when doing something that is legally criminal is morally the high ground. Then you are not only gaining, but protecting others too.
"We are looking at a lot of people being out of work as a result. Not the stars, but
I disagree. The need for people in media will always be there. When you kill the copyright cartel, that will force the market to center around information services instead of information controls. It's just like Linux. Linux taking over the datacenter space caused all that money that was being directed toward Microsoft, to be directed toward software related services. It was a painfull adjustment, but it still caused a boom for developer demand in that sector.
Like most government programs, they start out with nice intentions but fail terribly when implemented. The US doesn't have an education service. Maybe we have a mandatory babysitting service, or perhaps a temporary incarceration service, or even a parent/youth entertainment service, but not an education service. The thing that is most sickening though is that no matter how badly education coerced at other peoples expense fails, ther are sill mobs who cling to the concept as if their very life depended on it. It's like communisim, even after the murder of 100 million people, ther are still people who cling to this failed ideology. These people are sick, just sickening.
The grandparent is not flaimbait. Patents and copyrights (by definition) force the market to center around the control value of innovation instead of the service value. Now all of a sudden people wonder why there are so many incoherent solutions, well WTF? The notion that invention and innovation would dry up without them is simply false and ignorant. Lawyers, buearucoracies, and governments are good at controling things, inventors are good at inventing things and providing solutions. Patents and copyrights do not help inventors. Maybe they help one or two every once in awhile, but other than that they are crap.
The other ponts are poor. Should we say that it is OK for a king to control peoples speech as long as he is reasonable about it? No, he has no right to that kind of control at all and any abuses are fair gaim to use as proof of that. Failing to associate the problems caused by copyright and patent to their nature is irrational. All those abuses you describe are simply copyright and patent being brought to their logical conclusion, it only takes a little common sense to see that. Copyrights and patents are not incentive, not property, but government imposed controls on invention and information that have no place in a free market or a free society.
Incentive, property, protection? What a crock!
The simple shocking ugly truth is that 90% of the problems in the IT industry are caused specifically because of proprietary crap being rammed down peoples throat. Get rid of copyrights and patents (which are a fradulent property right and incentive to begin with), and this problem would be solved in 5 seconds flat.
How about, they can be productive, stay on the cool technology, and get good pay with only a fraction of the corporate governance bullshit.
Are they going for a patnet or do they have one? If so it is guaranteed that they are either full of shit, or will be so high priced that it won't be worth it.
YES! You see, the music industry has this greedy scheme: Get DRM on all devices and then slowly close the door on all free formats. The only problem is that Apple decided to screw the screwers. They put DRM on iTunes that only they could use in addition non DRM formats to ensure wide distribution and seize the marketplace.
Now the RIAA and the copyright cartel have a huge problem. If they beat down on Apple, then Apple may just say "well screw you, we'll just disable any DRM and all music will be free" - ruining their plan to close the doors. However, if they don't beat down on Apple, then Apple will be the DRM master, also runining their greedy plans to be the DRM masters themselves.
The RIAA and the music industry are like the Mexican Army. You see, the Mexican Army (mid 1800) had better equiptment, more men, and better training than the US Army, but the US Army was albe to waltz in and kick ass because none of the Mexican generals trusted each other enough to work together. That's why the western half of America today belongs to the US and not Mexico. Well the same is true with DRM, they will kill each other before they will help their peers at their expense.
Arrogance like this just gets me so angry ...
Hypocrite, IP "rights" are the only bogus assertion around here.
... on importing slaves, and then if someone "stole" those slaves by freeing them, then I would say tough shit, that's the punishment you get for imposing false property rights.
Why don't you just way, "well it's OK for the King to choose what people are allowed to say as long as it makes sense and has a rational and moral component". And the appropiate response would be. FU, pull your head out and use the God given brain you were given to take things to their "rational" conclusion.