I learned recently in my Secured Transactions class that there is a basketball player who owns a car dealership that specializes in customers with really crappy credit. His dealership includes in the security agreement a right to make the car unusable upon default. That right is pretty normal, but--this dealership installs a device in every car it sells that the dealer can operate to render the car useless to the owner until they correct the default. The legality of this hasn't been litigated, but seems to be on the line (according to my professor anyway).
Why don't dealerships ever put in the security agreement that they will make and hold on to a copy of the key? Or, in this case, the dealer could order an extra "clicker" with every car, and hold on to that.
I decided to wait a little while to reply to this. I guess we still don't know the answer to this question for sure, but I thought your post would be a good way to find out if you pissed off any repo guys that read slashdot. But either there were none that found your post, or they're silently seeking a certain "Mister Whirly." So I'll have to tentatively agree with you until further developments.
This really brings up an interesting point. Repo guys really might start using this technology. Those big deisel tow-trucks are quicker than breaking into the car, but they are really noisy, which wakes the owner and the tow truck takes long enough that the owner has time to run outside and object (in most states, a verbal objection to repossession is enough to make finishing the repossession job illegal). Imagine if the repo guy just parked accross the street, pulled out his laptop, and went to work. 20 minutes later, he opens the door, hops in, and drives away--no one has time to figure out anything has happened before the car is gone.
However, if repo guys started doing that, then real software for it would come out. Nice, easy to use software with a pretty GUI that even a repo guy can use (I'm not saying they're dumb, but I don't think they're generally too computer savvy. Sorry to all the repo guys read/.). If that happens, then we'll soon have nice easy to use software that just about anyone could use to drive away in a car that isn't theirs.
A middle school teacher with a car that starts at the push of a button? Must be Council Rock School District. Well, perhaps it was a car with Northstar.
I feel odd saying this being that I am in law school and the article was written by a law professor... But anyway, his example in the summary is flawed--cable and telephone companies are not government entities. Even being government regulated doesn't make it a government entity. I-95, on the other hand, is a government project. I-95 can't say what cars drive where; it can't say anything at all--it's a road. The government says who drives where on I-95. The government is not allowed to discriminate in that way. But I can't think of any laws that make it illegal for a private company to discriminate in this way. It would be different if the government owned the cable and/or telephone companies.
However, it wouldn't be unusual for the government to step in and regulate something like this. I think they should too--normally I am all about letting the free market do it's work, but in this case I don't think the market would correct the problem. The only internet provider available to me is Adelphia--I can't even get DSL. This is true in a lot of places. And in most places, there are only 2 or 3 internet providers (I'm excluding dial-up), and I could easily imagine both or all three service providers doing the same thing if this is allowed. And if that happened, how would the market correct that? We'd have to boycot the internet.
You still weren't able to resurrect the fabrication. If what you are saying is true, then that means Microsoft supposedly favors this company, and yet (1) Microsoft offered no support for the product they so graciously gave to this favored company, (2) the company was running Vista, but BitLocker was not installed on the machines, even though they supposedly come together, (3) BitLocker was somehow a filesystem, and (3) they were doing what with Vista and FAT32?
Basically, it still doesn't add up. (I'll leave the subject line unchanged from what you changed it to)
Parent post is NOT informative; it's a lie. Is the employee that suggested you use BitLocker the same one that suggested you use Vista while it's pre-release?
I find it so odd the lengths people go sometimes to trash a company/person. Outright lies? It's one thing to hate M$ for things they've actually done, but to drive others to hate them for things you've claimed, but never actually happeneed to you? You are what's wrong with society.
Even if parent was correct, I don't understand his complaint. 3 hours on the phone is worth the time--though I'm a student, so time does not equal money to me--for a "free" new hard drive.
However, I disagree with the parent's premise. I haven't had any problems. I bought my Dell laptop off eBay, and it still had 3 years left of someone else's warranty. When I accidentally broke a key off my keyboard (note this is the only problem I've had with my Dell so far), I called up Dell. Within 20 minutes I had the warranty moved to my name from someone named "George," and a new keyboard on its way. AND--I didn't want someone coming to install my new keyboard for me. It would be different if I needed a new motherboard, but I'd rather install a keyboard myself so I can do it on my schedule (i.e. in the middle of the night, when I'm done my reading for classes), and so I'm not without a computer (which I need for classes). They were fine with me installing the keyboard--doing so did not shorten the life of the warranty at all even though the switch required me to dismantle the laptop.
So there are a few notable good qualities here: Quick service Free I can do the fix myself without hurting the warranty. These aren't qualities you find in most tech support or most warranties.
The article says that these lights should last significantly longer than traditional light bulbs. That language implies it doesn't last indefinitely, but how long does it last? Is it a huge task to replace the light? I mean--if the whole ceiling is a light... I mean, it just better last a really long time, if it's tough to replace.
I'd like to know when they plan on applying the same hammer to US corporations and businesses that do the same thing. Hey, if the average dishonest American citizen is going to be made to pay up, let's have some of that dirty money that fatcat CEOs are squirreling away too.
When the IRS says "taxpayer," the term includes corporations within it by definition. So, they aren't necessarily going for individual citizens here. Really I think this is getting at those internet businesses that sell stuff on ebay (or wherever) and has PayPal transfer the funds to an offshore account. I think this is a much more likely scenario than some grandma with a Bermudan anonymous bank account.
At the same time, however, there are other problems that the IRS needs to go after, like this CEO thing you mentioned. Truthfully though, I don't think that's as big of a deal. Most of our tax income comes from small businesses, so that's the more important segment to keep honest. (I know, you're thinking, sure "most of the tax income comes from small businesses," that's because the big ones are evading! But really, there are a ton of small businesses out there. And also more and more businesses of many sizes are taking PayPal).
Also I think there's one other reason to put off going after the big businesses--they are very sophisticated. It's very expensive to show in court that a big business is cheating because they are so darn good at it. There's just no way to close all the loopholes; the businesses evolve in response to the way the government taxes them. I think the government realizes this, and says "hey, they're employing our citizens."
For some reason I had thought we already had a bunch of missiles in space (and perhaps the US does, and also perhaps Russia and China). But, after a quick Google search, it appears that the US wants weapons in space, but hasn't actually put any up there yet (as far as they've admitted to). So, yes, putting this weapon there would have been a bigger deal than I was thinking.
If this works, sure, our little F-16's and whatnot can use them. But what is the feasibility of mounting these things on satellites? No need to bounce them off mirrors on satellites, just mount it on a satelite on the first place.
That's a good point--the emails will still go out, they just might get blocked by the spam filter. I really do doubt that any banks will spend the money to get their emails through (I hope they don't, anyway--us customers end up paying for these extra costs). I think the only companies that will actually spend money to get their emails through will be companies that the that cost as an investment; or, in other words, advertisers.
Reading the comments and examples of "corporate speak," I find it fascinatingly similar to the BS that comes out of the mouths of motivational speakers.
This really isn't news. This is just an acknowledgment of the deceit behind their earlier statements. They did a real crappy job of deceit though, as everyone saw this as something that wouldn't block spam. Instead I'll have spam with little blue ribbons that was paid for. And then I'll have spam that I can't tell apart from my normal mail because it wasn't paid for, but it made it through the spam filter (except really we all cann t311 1t apart fr0m 0ur normal mail for the 0b>i0us reasons).
It won't take long to realize that in reality anything WITH a symbol is spam.
This will be even more true than it initially seems, I think. See, I highly doubt Chase wants to pay money to send me a plain text notice that my CC statement is available online. So I am imagining that when a company asks for an email address to send estatements or notices, a lot of them will reject AOL or Yahoo and request a different email address.
If many companies do this, then the only "certified" mail in the box really will be spam. And then I really will know--little blue ribbon=spam.
Phew, I thought I wasn't going to be able to tell it apart from my legitimate mail!
The UCC was written by banks. And hence, there is no requirement that the lender notify the debtor before accelerating payment. This is the norm. The industry writes the laws that are relevant to itself. It isn't like Microsoft was the only business allowed to participate. This is nothing more than an attempt to scare people through mention of Microsoft, playing off people's dislike for Microsoft, and their lack of knowledge with regard to how laws are made.
It is my belief that patents stifle innovation, and they allow the patents holders to stick with the status quo longer than open competition would allow. . . . If they had protected this patent and EchoStar was never able to compete, all it would mean is that Tivo would have left their prices higher than the market would expect, and they'd still not do much to innovate and invent.
I think differently. I think that if TiVo had protected its patent, Echostar would not have been able to make money off technology that TiVo spent money developing. So, in order to make money, Echostar would have had to come up with its own technology, and in order to draw customers away from TiVo, the Echostar technology would have to be cheaper and/or better. That is the opposite of stifling innovation.
Instead, because TiVo did not stomp on Echostar fast enough, Echostar made money off technology that was already in existance. There was no need for the company to innovate--it used TiVo technology instead. So, because of this patent infringement, we have no new technological development.
So, in conclusion, and in contradiction to your argument, I think infringement of this patent is a prime example of how not enforcing patent law stifles innovation. Not vice versa.
If drug prices in the United States were to fall by 70 percent in the absence of patent protection, it would amount to savings of more than $140 billion a year
That's the money that I'm talking that is the incentive for drug companies to develop new drugs. They don't spend it all on making new drugs, true--but without profits, a company will nonetheless not exist.
Indeed, for most firms trade secrets, know-how, lead time to markets, continuing technological innovation, licensing, name recognition, service capabilities and the use of complementary marketing and manufacturing capabilities are often deemed more effective than patent protection.
Trade secrets: the reason this is less good, from a social standapoint, than patent protection is because each company has to spend money repeating research that was already done by another company. Why is this bad? Because it slows overall scientific innovation. The wonderful thing about patents is that it offers similar economic benefits to trade secrets, but the information is published in the public domain. That means Company A can look at the research performed by Company B, and build upon what was already done. Also, University C can build upon the research done by Companies A and B. With trade secrets taking the place of patents, innovation occurs more slowly because everyone keeps their innovation secret.
Know-how: don't all of these pharmaceutical companies have know-how. That's where their all equal, I hope.
Continuing technological innovation: I would contend that technological innovation will slow if the companies begin using trade secrets instead of patents. And I know that companies will be using trade secrets if patents are abolished.
Licensing: this is a byproduct of patents, and pretty much shows how lame your source is. You license the use of patented technologies (or technologies under trade secret). Without patent law, there is no money to be made of licensing.
Name recognition: this is to be had through a combination of trademark law--isn't this something else you guys are trying to abolish?--and patent law. If everyone can make the product you invented, then people are buying whatever's cheapest, they don't know your company from the next. Name recognition comes from being able to say "that's the company that made X."
I don't have time to discuss all of the things listed there, but the ones I skipped are prety minor anyway.
One more thing though: "because they are guaranteed to not make a return on their investment." You keep repeating that, as if repeating it makes it true. . . . That patents could in some magical way provide inventors with a income guarantee is a myth
Do you work in computers? That was mighty illogical for someone that does. You must work in a different field. I didn't say that patents guarantee income, I said that not having patents guarantees a lower income. I said: If not A, then not B (If no patents, then no income). You said that the following is false: If A, then B (if patents, then income). But what does that have to do with I said? You are out there attempting to disprove an argument I never made. Sure, having patents doesn't guarantee income--I agree with that! But the inability to make money off of derivatives of patents (like licenses, and name recognition) would guarantee less income. And it would also be worse overall for society because of the effects of trade secrets, which would take the place of patents.
You say that emperical research supports your position. But anyone who knows anything about empirical research knows that you can find "empirical research" that supports anything you feel like. I'll show you a study in Nature that says human embryos have been cloned! I can tell you one thing though--since the advent of patents, the rate of technological innovation has increased dramatically.
Aren't you people the same people who like that we have Medicaid and stuff? Last I checked Medicaid covers AIDS. So do most insurance plans. So the high cost of the resultant AIDS medication is affordable to Americans after all. And not just that. The rest of the world complains about the high cost of American medications, so, America and American companies have negotiated with African nations, which unlike the US has real AIDS problems, to bring them AIDS meds at cheaper than cost.
I thought that on Slashdot I wouldn't have to actually explicitly make the next logical step. If a company cannot make a return on what it invests--it doesn't make money! It goes broke! It stops making drugs. Yes; if a company is willing to sell medications at a loss, you will be able to buy cheaper medications. However, that company won't be around for long.
Canada chooses to subsidize the cost of pharmaceuticals by taking some of the cost from the consumer (of course, this cost is returned to the Canadian consumer through taxes), the US chooses to subsidize the cost of pharmaceuticals through patent law, instead of through taxes (Actually also through taxes--Medicaid, etc... No need to get into that now).
You people seem to think the subject is so simple--how about the fact that, because Americans pay more for drugs, Africans can have them for below cost. This could only be done through patent law? How about the fact that because Canadians subsidize drugs through taxes, US citizens can buy them from Canada over the internet, basically taking advantage of both low drug prices and (relatively) low US taxes? These issues combined with ones already mentioned make this whole area of law very complicated. It doesn't all come down to one simple solution. (actually it would--we could do the whole socialist thing, but Americans aren't down with that. At the same time, however, Americans freely complain about not having socialist things that other countries have. They also complain about high taxes... No one can do anything to the satisfaction of Americans, huh? Yes, I am American, but I try not to be one of those Americans).
If Motorala can't make money off its innovation, it won't spend money on innovation. You say, that the companies have to innovate to survive--but who will pay for the research for the innovation? Without patents the R&D will inevitably cost more than the company can make on the product. The company would not survive in such an environment. You must either patent, use trade secrets (read above for the societal disadvantages to this), or get government subsidy.
You got the right feel of the article, but you misunderstand it. The parent says that the US gov't funds most of the research for drugs. Allow me to quote from the article you linked to:
"A study by the Boston Globe newspaper in 1998 found the National Institutes of Health (NIH) laboratories spent $1bn on drug and vaccine development in the 1996 tax year"
"six HIV/Aids drugs, as well as anti-malarial treatments and other medicines of vital interest to developing countries, had been invented with public funds."
The article goes on and on about how the special treatment from patents of Pharma Co's gives them lots of profits. It says $1 bil went from the NIH. That's a pittance of the overall costs of drug R&D. I also quoted the other paragraph from the article that mentioned what drugs the public funds were going to--drugs for other countries. My point is that the parent was incorrect when it said most of the funds were coming from the government. In reality, a small portion of the funds come from the government, and they usually go, as I mentioned before, to drugs that the companies would otherwise not have incentive to develop through current patent law.
I guess that's just the way you read the article (which is already coming from a very liberal source) when you're someone that is already dogmatically against patents... Stop and think, you fools!!!
Slashdot Mirror
Why don't dealerships ever put in the security agreement that they will make and hold on to a copy of the key? Or, in this case, the dealer could order an extra "clicker" with every car, and hold on to that.
I decided to wait a little while to reply to this. I guess we still don't know the answer to this question for sure, but I thought your post would be a good way to find out if you pissed off any repo guys that read slashdot. But either there were none that found your post, or they're silently seeking a certain "Mister Whirly." So I'll have to tentatively agree with you until further developments.
This really brings up an interesting point. Repo guys really might start using this technology. Those big deisel tow-trucks are quicker than breaking into the car, but they are really noisy, which wakes the owner and the tow truck takes long enough that the owner has time to run outside and object (in most states, a verbal objection to repossession is enough to make finishing the repossession job illegal). Imagine if the repo guy just parked accross the street, pulled out his laptop, and went to work. 20 minutes later, he opens the door, hops in, and drives away--no one has time to figure out anything has happened before the car is gone.
/.). If that happens, then we'll soon have nice easy to use software that just about anyone could use to drive away in a car that isn't theirs.
However, if repo guys started doing that, then real software for it would come out. Nice, easy to use software with a pretty GUI that even a repo guy can use (I'm not saying they're dumb, but I don't think they're generally too computer savvy. Sorry to all the repo guys read
A middle school teacher with a car that starts at the push of a button? Must be Council Rock School District. Well, perhaps it was a car with Northstar.
Yeah, that wouldn't "be evil."
However, it wouldn't be unusual for the government to step in and regulate something like this. I think they should too--normally I am all about letting the free market do it's work, but in this case I don't think the market would correct the problem. The only internet provider available to me is Adelphia--I can't even get DSL. This is true in a lot of places. And in most places, there are only 2 or 3 internet providers (I'm excluding dial-up), and I could easily imagine both or all three service providers doing the same thing if this is allowed. And if that happened, how would the market correct that? We'd have to boycot the internet.
You still weren't able to resurrect the fabrication. If what you are saying is true, then that means Microsoft supposedly favors this company, and yet (1) Microsoft offered no support for the product they so graciously gave to this favored company, (2) the company was running Vista, but BitLocker was not installed on the machines, even though they supposedly come together, (3) BitLocker was somehow a filesystem, and (3) they were doing what with Vista and FAT32?
Basically, it still doesn't add up. (I'll leave the subject line unchanged from what you changed it to)
Parent post is NOT informative; it's a lie. Is the employee that suggested you use BitLocker the same one that suggested you use Vista while it's pre-release?
I find it so odd the lengths people go sometimes to trash a company/person. Outright lies? It's one thing to hate M$ for things they've actually done, but to drive others to hate them for things you've claimed, but never actually happeneed to you? You are what's wrong with society.
I have to say that, personally, I think MIT's OpenCourseWare is excellent.
Even if parent was correct, I don't understand his complaint. 3 hours on the phone is worth the time--though I'm a student, so time does not equal money to me--for a "free" new hard drive.
However, I disagree with the parent's premise. I haven't had any problems. I bought my Dell laptop off eBay, and it still had 3 years left of someone else's warranty. When I accidentally broke a key off my keyboard (note this is the only problem I've had with my Dell so far), I called up Dell. Within 20 minutes I had the warranty moved to my name from someone named "George," and a new keyboard on its way. AND--I didn't want someone coming to install my new keyboard for me. It would be different if I needed a new motherboard, but I'd rather install a keyboard myself so I can do it on my schedule (i.e. in the middle of the night, when I'm done my reading for classes), and so I'm not without a computer (which I need for classes). They were fine with me installing the keyboard--doing so did not shorten the life of the warranty at all even though the switch required me to dismantle the laptop.
So there are a few notable good qualities here:
Quick service
Free
I can do the fix myself without hurting the warranty.
These aren't qualities you find in most tech support or most warranties.
The article says that these lights should last significantly longer than traditional light bulbs. That language implies it doesn't last indefinitely, but how long does it last? Is it a huge task to replace the light? I mean--if the whole ceiling is a light... I mean, it just better last a really long time, if it's tough to replace.
When the IRS says "taxpayer," the term includes corporations within it by definition. So, they aren't necessarily going for individual citizens here. Really I think this is getting at those internet businesses that sell stuff on ebay (or wherever) and has PayPal transfer the funds to an offshore account. I think this is a much more likely scenario than some grandma with a Bermudan anonymous bank account.
At the same time, however, there are other problems that the IRS needs to go after, like this CEO thing you mentioned. Truthfully though, I don't think that's as big of a deal. Most of our tax income comes from small businesses, so that's the more important segment to keep honest. (I know, you're thinking, sure "most of the tax income comes from small businesses," that's because the big ones are evading! But really, there are a ton of small businesses out there. And also more and more businesses of many sizes are taking PayPal).
Also I think there's one other reason to put off going after the big businesses--they are very sophisticated. It's very expensive to show in court that a big business is cheating because they are so darn good at it. There's just no way to close all the loopholes; the businesses evolve in response to the way the government taxes them. I think the government realizes this, and says "hey, they're employing our citizens."
But who knows....
For some reason I had thought we already had a bunch of missiles in space (and perhaps the US does, and also perhaps Russia and China). But, after a quick Google search, it appears that the US wants weapons in space, but hasn't actually put any up there yet (as far as they've admitted to). So, yes, putting this weapon there would have been a bigger deal than I was thinking.
If this works, sure, our little F-16's and whatnot can use them. But what is the feasibility of mounting these things on satellites? No need to bounce them off mirrors on satellites, just mount it on a satelite on the first place.
That's a good point--the emails will still go out, they just might get blocked by the spam filter. I really do doubt that any banks will spend the money to get their emails through (I hope they don't, anyway--us customers end up paying for these extra costs). I think the only companies that will actually spend money to get their emails through will be companies that the that cost as an investment; or, in other words, advertisers.
Reading the comments and examples of "corporate speak," I find it fascinatingly similar to the BS that comes out of the mouths of motivational speakers.
No real substance to it; it's just a show.
This really isn't news. This is just an acknowledgment of the deceit behind their earlier statements. They did a real crappy job of deceit though, as everyone saw this as something that wouldn't block spam. Instead I'll have spam with little blue ribbons that was paid for. And then I'll have spam that I can't tell apart from my normal mail because it wasn't paid for, but it made it through the spam filter (except really we all cann t311 1t apart fr0m 0ur normal mail for the 0b>i0us reasons).
If many companies do this, then the only "certified" mail in the box really will be spam. And then I really will know--little blue ribbon=spam.
Phew, I thought I wasn't going to be able to tell it apart from my legitimate mail!
The UCC was written by banks. And hence, there is no requirement that the lender notify the debtor before accelerating payment.
This is the norm. The industry writes the laws that are relevant to itself.
It isn't like Microsoft was the only business allowed to participate.
This is nothing more than an attempt to scare people through mention of Microsoft, playing off people's dislike for Microsoft, and their lack of knowledge with regard to how laws are made.
I think differently. I think that if TiVo had protected its patent, Echostar would not have been able to make money off technology that TiVo spent money developing. So, in order to make money, Echostar would have had to come up with its own technology, and in order to draw customers away from TiVo, the Echostar technology would have to be cheaper and/or better. That is the opposite of stifling innovation.
Instead, because TiVo did not stomp on Echostar fast enough, Echostar made money off technology that was already in existance. There was no need for the company to innovate--it used TiVo technology instead. So, because of this patent infringement, we have no new technological development.
So, in conclusion, and in contradiction to your argument, I think infringement of this patent is a prime example of how not enforcing patent law stifles innovation. Not vice versa.
That's the money that I'm talking that is the incentive for drug companies to develop new drugs. They don't spend it all on making new drugs, true--but without profits, a company will nonetheless not exist.
Indeed, for most firms trade secrets, know-how, lead time to markets, continuing technological innovation, licensing, name recognition, service capabilities and the use of complementary marketing and manufacturing capabilities are often deemed more effective than patent protection.
Trade secrets: the reason this is less good, from a social standapoint, than patent protection is because each company has to spend money repeating research that was already done by another company. Why is this bad? Because it slows overall scientific innovation. The wonderful thing about patents is that it offers similar economic benefits to trade secrets, but the information is published in the public domain. That means Company A can look at the research performed by Company B, and build upon what was already done. Also, University C can build upon the research done by Companies A and B. With trade secrets taking the place of patents, innovation occurs more slowly because everyone keeps their innovation secret.
Know-how: don't all of these pharmaceutical companies have know-how. That's where their all equal, I hope.
Continuing technological innovation: I would contend that technological innovation will slow if the companies begin using trade secrets instead of patents. And I know that companies will be using trade secrets if patents are abolished.
Licensing: this is a byproduct of patents, and pretty much shows how lame your source is. You license the use of patented technologies (or technologies under trade secret). Without patent law, there is no money to be made of licensing.
Name recognition: this is to be had through a combination of trademark law--isn't this something else you guys are trying to abolish?--and patent law. If everyone can make the product you invented, then people are buying whatever's cheapest, they don't know your company from the next. Name recognition comes from being able to say "that's the company that made X."
I don't have time to discuss all of the things listed there, but the ones I skipped are prety minor anyway.
One more thing though: "because they are guaranteed to not make a return on their investment." You keep repeating that, as if repeating it makes it true. . . . That patents could in some magical way provide inventors with a income guarantee is a myth
Do you work in computers? That was mighty illogical for someone that does. You must work in a different field. I didn't say that patents guarantee income, I said that not having patents guarantees a lower income. I said: If not A, then not B (If no patents, then no income). You said that the following is false: If A, then B (if patents, then income). But what does that have to do with I said? You are out there attempting to disprove an argument I never made. Sure, having patents doesn't guarantee income--I agree with that! But the inability to make money off of derivatives of patents (like licenses, and name recognition) would guarantee less income. And it would also be worse overall for society because of the effects of trade secrets, which would take the place of patents.
You say that emperical research supports your position. But anyone who knows anything about empirical research knows that you can find "empirical research" that supports anything you feel like. I'll show you a study in Nature that says human embryos have been cloned! I can tell you one thing though--since the advent of patents, the rate of technological innovation has increased dramatically.
Aren't you people the same people who like that we have Medicaid and stuff? Last I checked Medicaid covers AIDS. So do most insurance plans. So the high cost of the resultant AIDS medication is affordable to Americans after all. And not just that. The rest of the world complains about the high cost of American medications, so, America and American companies have negotiated with African nations, which unlike the US has real AIDS problems, to bring them AIDS meds at cheaper than cost.
Canada chooses to subsidize the cost of pharmaceuticals by taking some of the cost from the consumer (of course, this cost is returned to the Canadian consumer through taxes), the US chooses to subsidize the cost of pharmaceuticals through patent law, instead of through taxes (Actually also through taxes--Medicaid, etc... No need to get into that now).
You people seem to think the subject is so simple--how about the fact that, because Americans pay more for drugs, Africans can have them for below cost. This could only be done through patent law? How about the fact that because Canadians subsidize drugs through taxes, US citizens can buy them from Canada over the internet, basically taking advantage of both low drug prices and (relatively) low US taxes? These issues combined with ones already mentioned make this whole area of law very complicated. It doesn't all come down to one simple solution. (actually it would--we could do the whole socialist thing, but Americans aren't down with that. At the same time, however, Americans freely complain about not having socialist things that other countries have. They also complain about high taxes... No one can do anything to the satisfaction of Americans, huh? Yes, I am American, but I try not to be one of those Americans).
If Motorala can't make money off its innovation, it won't spend money on innovation. You say, that the companies have to innovate to survive--but who will pay for the research for the innovation? Without patents the R&D will inevitably cost more than the company can make on the product. The company would not survive in such an environment. You must either patent, use trade secrets (read above for the societal disadvantages to this), or get government subsidy.
"A study by the Boston Globe newspaper in 1998 found the National Institutes of Health (NIH) laboratories spent $1bn on drug and vaccine development in the 1996 tax year"
"six HIV/Aids drugs, as well as anti-malarial treatments and other medicines of vital interest to developing countries, had been invented with public funds."
The article goes on and on about how the special treatment from patents of Pharma Co's gives them lots of profits. It says $1 bil went from the NIH. That's a pittance of the overall costs of drug R&D. I also quoted the other paragraph from the article that mentioned what drugs the public funds were going to--drugs for other countries. My point is that the parent was incorrect when it said most of the funds were coming from the government. In reality, a small portion of the funds come from the government, and they usually go, as I mentioned before, to drugs that the companies would otherwise not have incentive to develop through current patent law.
I guess that's just the way you read the article (which is already coming from a very liberal source) when you're someone that is already dogmatically against patents... Stop and think, you fools!!!