I seem to recall the NRA getting in a fury over people trying to outlaw guns in the U.S. because only a "minority" of gun-owners actually shoots people or commits crimes. Thus, guns are totally legal here today. Much of the U.S. Bill of Rights is based on protecting the minority from majority opinion. I think that trying to make mod-chips illegal hurts the minority of modders over the majority of piraters: it's still not a good solution.
You are correct in that trade secrets cannot be declared over existing patents; I was (mistakenly)referring to the Listerine case where royalties from a competitor were awarded even though no patent was ever granted and the formula had been public (i.e. not secret) for 25 years.
I understand the argument that industry needs patent protection in order to justify its investment in innovation, but that argument is up for debate. I mean, for one thing, some have argued that our system actually stifles innovation because researchers balk at the high prices of royalties and the fees involved in finding out who holds patents and licenses in the first place. Second, some people would also argue that the "rate of innovation" has decreased dramatically over the past thirty years; drugs that appear "to have therapeutic qualities similar to those of an already marketed drug" appear much more frequently than inherently new, innovative drugs. And that doesn't even begin to get into concerns over equity, monopoly, and price-gouging.
I'm not arguing that patents be abandoned, but I think that there is some merit to arguing over the efficacy of our system.
First, in 1995 patents were extended to 20 years. Second, the pharmaceutical industry in particular uses various methods to extend patents beyond 20 years: legislative loopholes, lobbying, and litigation among them. Companies will often make minor modifications to a drug when the patent is soon to expire, thus obtaining a new patent. Alternatively, inventions can be given trade secret status if companies aren't able to extend the patent.
Finally, the pharmaceutical industry posts the most profit of any U.S. industry(18-21% per annum compared to 14% in the next runner-up), so arguments that they are somehow not recouping their (substantial) investments seem moot.
For a good article on people trying to save their sick kids, see the Atlantic Monthly's 2001 article Cloning Trevor. It provides a good overview of the intricacies of emotions surrounding the debate, and exactly how misunderstood cloning is; for example, how hard it is to work with and propagate cloned stem cell lines, and how this will eventually force the research overseas.
in the U.S. you have inalienable rights.
which was pretty much my point. the concept of inherent, inalienable rights pertains only to the U.S. legal system and a couple of others. and even in the U.S. "rights" is a constantly changing, hopefully evolving set of ideas. And given the current political climate, I still stand by my previous statement that rights are subject to change without notice.
We can generate more than enough wealth to keep everyone happy
Are you kidding? We can do that now, but it seems like some people think they deserve to be happier than others.
As one of the Russian authorities pointed out, it basically boils down to "commercial competition" between the two countries. The disparity in our economies is manifested in the lack of law enforcement in Russia.
People who have no other options use what they've got, and countries with bigger problems than a couple of their citizens trying to make some money (albeit illegally) have their hands tied. I think the more interesting question is how to resolve the problem in a manner that would help both sides; is the answer simply stamping out these people's skills and livelihoods?
I think the point being missed is that internet technology gives people the tools to help themselves, whereas setting up infrastructure does not. Technology is another important component of development, and one that expands the possibilities for self-education (such as info on family planning, health, etc) and communication with the outside world.
Even in the US, technology can provide people with a lifeline (www.wirelessfoundation.org).
Slashdot Mirror
I seem to recall the NRA getting in a fury over people trying to outlaw guns in the U.S. because only a "minority" of gun-owners actually shoots people or commits crimes. Thus, guns are totally legal here today. Much of the U.S. Bill of Rights is based on protecting the minority from majority opinion. I think that trying to make mod-chips illegal hurts the minority of modders over the majority of piraters: it's still not a good solution.
You are correct in that trade secrets cannot be declared over existing patents; I was (mistakenly)referring to the Listerine case where royalties from a competitor were awarded even though no patent was ever granted and the formula had been public (i.e. not secret) for 25 years.
I understand the argument that industry needs patent protection in order to justify its investment in innovation, but that argument is up for debate. I mean, for one thing, some have argued that our system actually stifles innovation because researchers balk at the high prices of royalties and the fees involved in finding out who holds patents and licenses in the first place. Second, some people would also argue that the "rate of innovation" has decreased dramatically over the past thirty years; drugs that appear "to have therapeutic qualities similar to those of an already marketed drug" appear much more frequently than inherently new, innovative drugs. And that doesn't even begin to get into concerns over equity, monopoly, and price-gouging.
I'm not arguing that patents be abandoned, but I think that there is some merit to arguing over the efficacy of our system.
First, in 1995 patents were extended to 20 years. Second, the pharmaceutical industry in particular uses various methods to extend patents beyond 20 years: legislative loopholes, lobbying, and litigation among them. Companies will often make minor modifications to a drug when the patent is soon to expire, thus obtaining a new patent. Alternatively, inventions can be given trade secret status if companies aren't able to extend the patent.
Finally, the pharmaceutical industry posts the most profit of any U.S. industry(18-21% per annum compared to 14% in the next runner-up), so arguments that they are somehow not recouping their (substantial) investments seem moot.
how to beat the common cold, it can share this information with us.
For a good article on people trying to save their sick kids, see the Atlantic Monthly's 2001 article Cloning Trevor. It provides a good overview of the intricacies of emotions surrounding the debate, and exactly how misunderstood cloning is; for example, how hard it is to work with and propagate cloned stem cell lines, and how this will eventually force the research overseas.
in the U.S. you have inalienable rights.
which was pretty much my point. the concept of inherent, inalienable rights pertains only to the U.S. legal system and a couple of others. and even in the U.S. "rights" is a constantly changing, hopefully evolving set of ideas. And given the current political climate, I still stand by my previous statement that rights are subject to change without notice.
What is inherent is life and liberty.
Disclaimer: What is inherent is subject to change without notice or reasonable cause.
We can generate more than enough wealth to keep everyone happy Are you kidding? We can do that now, but it seems like some people think they deserve to be happier than others.
I'm sure Japan is pleased to know where their 2.26 trillion yen in foreign aid to China went over the past 25 years.
Dude, who codes in fluent and clear English?
As one of the Russian authorities pointed out, it basically boils down to "commercial competition" between the two countries. The disparity in our economies is manifested in the lack of law enforcement in Russia. People who have no other options use what they've got, and countries with bigger problems than a couple of their citizens trying to make some money (albeit illegally) have their hands tied. I think the more interesting question is how to resolve the problem in a manner that would help both sides; is the answer simply stamping out these people's skills and livelihoods?
I think the point being missed is that internet technology gives people the tools to help themselves, whereas setting up infrastructure does not. Technology is another important component of development, and one that expands the possibilities for self-education (such as info on family planning, health, etc) and communication with the outside world. Even in the US, technology can provide people with a lifeline (www.wirelessfoundation.org).