Time to end patent rights and intellectual property rights

[kengineer]

If patent rights and intellectual property rights were ended tomorrow. The world would see a renaissance of progress not seen in a long damn time upon this planet.

We would actually be able to develop the best products for the least amount of money possible.

EFFICIENCY would become the focus of companies as they produce a fine product or service for customers.

Done.

[Systematic Chaos]

1. But if patent rights were killed altogether

wouldn't it destroy the incentive to make newer and better things by ensuring that inventors wouldn't receive just compensation?

Maybe they just need to close some loopholes in the existing rules.

I am more in agreement with you over "intellectual property" bullcrap, though....

[kengineer]

4. Incentive

YOU: wouldn't it destroy the incentive to make newer and better things by ensuring that inventors wouldn't receive just compensation?

ME: I think that compensation for all invention and ideas that we think of ought to be, simply, the betterment of our local communities, our families, and the world... Don't you? The whole concept of trying to think something up so you can "get rich" is a bit of a psychological disorder and sickenss... it removes caring about our world from the equation.

[redeye]

8. You: The betterment of our local communities is a compensation

Me: Maybe, but it's not good enough a compensation for most people or for any corporation. Monetary compensation is important to ensure that what's in the inventor's interest is also in everybody's interest.

[kengineer]

46. Further clarification... but maintaining my original post...

YOU: Monetary compensation is important to ensure that what's in the inventor's interest is also in everybody's interest.

Companies, which we can think of as a group of people gathering together to create a product, spend lots of money on R&D to produce a product. Laws should, of course, be reasonably structured to allow companies to recover their R&D costs, plus a reasonable bonus that society agrees with.

Companies take ideas from "their employees" all the time. I'd phrase it intellectual slavery of a type... It's the same old story of those who "have money" (and power), structuring laws such that they can "maintain their money." It's the most fundamental story of financial history on this planet.

It isn't "who" created something that is in question, somebody’s name will always reside next to the invention, it's why they invented it in the first place that is the essence of desiring to change the current laws.

Once a fantastic invention is created, the world evaluates it and determines if it is something that would benefit the entire world in all relevant products that are made. If it is, the other companies may have immediate access to it, and the original company that invented it is still fully compensated for their R&D costs plus a reasonable bonus.

[Paschall]

12. Tell that to Thomas Edison

He was severly afflicted with what you describe as a psychological disorder.

By the way how do you propose for artists and writers to live? State subsidies? Now there's an interesting proposition! (You agree with Ezra Pound.)

[Old and In the Way]

44. By the logic posted here

Old Tom would be buried a poor, unknown man. Some pre-existing huge company would have "borrowed" his ideas and made it impossible for Tom to compete and make money from his inventions.

[AP]

63. UK has a law which allows inventors of extremely profitable patents

to renegotiate their contract assigning/licensing those rights (usually this agreement is with their employer).

[Trek234]

58. Are you kidding?

Do you think just ANYONE could come and emulate Mariah Carry, a good artist, painter, etc just because they had the ability to TRY and reproduce the art they made? Do you think it would POSSIBLY have the same value?

Oh look! I can now legally recreate Britney Spears songs personally! Watch me beat her out of her money now!

[Bandit]

73. The Chinese are very good at pirating music from us.

What if the Chinese record her voice and sell it to you for a tenth the price she was selling it for. Which would you buy. Her CD for $19.99 or a knock-off of her for $3.95. You still get to listen to Maria Carey.

[Terwilliger]

16. very simplistic

unless, of course, you advocate socialism...so that a person can be compensated for her works without having to worry about being left behind.

Otherwise, you're asking capitalism to "have a heart" which, clearly, it does not.

[Muddleoftheroad]

47. Well, that's naive

I'm glad you aren't making the decision.

[chesley]

56. based on what I

see of the world, most people would rather have some other incentive. I think this is human nature. Patents were developed so that people would share their 'secret' technologies. I'm sorry, but I cannot agree with you that there would be progress on the technological fronts at all, as not all research results in a usable product, but it all requires investment money anyway. Money which will no be put up without a chance of a return on the investment.

Now, copurights on music, that I can see doing away with.

[AP]

64. That is such an insult to a develauation of human labor

That's not very different than Bush saying that we should all go work for charities at low pay as thousands of points of light while he and his cronies make millions off of more lucrative professions.

[sushi]

82. Capitalists

won't agree with you.

[DEMActivist]

2. My husband owns 2 patents, and I own 2 copyrights

and when asked what the value of those are, we tell them what the attorneys told us long ago:

Your patent/copyright is worth no more than your checkbook has in it to defend it.

A patent is worthless if you can't afford to defend it.

A copyright is worthless if you can't afford to defend it.

[kengineer]

6. Good points

Those are good points.

Which means, specifically, that those who are most often protected by patents and intellectual property rights are those who already have the cash... and then it helps them maintain the cash...

Our reward should be helping our communities, out families, and the world as a whole. Trying to create something to "get rich" is no reward, it's a sickness. It removes caring about the world from the equation.

[Paschall]

17. That is only a problem if your judicial system...

...like that in the US, is primarily greased by dollars. It's relatively easy and inexpensive to defend many intellectual property rights in places like France (I've done it several times).

[juajen]

86. You have a valid point; however

I am a writer of children's books; believe me, if Disney stole one of my copyrights, a smart lawyer would defend it on a contingency basis. So, I could afford to defend it. This is just one of the good things about contingency fees. Depending on the strength of the case, there are lawyers for the asking. This is one of the many reasons the pugs back tort reform and want to do away with contingency fees. Poor people couldn't sue.

[uberotto]

3. Patent rights shouldn't be eliminated...

but they should be limited and specific. No more software or business patents. No more patenting of ideas, must be an actual creation. Patents should be specific in what they cover. Most businesses today routinely file overly broad patents which cover much more than the original idea. Also, the cost of challenging a patent should be covered by the same people who awarded the patent. In other words, if I go to court to challenge a patent, and the judge rules that I have a chance of winning the case, then from that time on, the USPTO has to cover my leagal fees.

As for Intellectual Property rights, well, my opinions on that are slightly different. Intellectual Property is just some rediculous, made up term and anyone who claims their Intellectual Property rights have been violated should be removed from the face of the Earth in the most paniful method available.

[paulsbc]

7. i agree

this type of reform is needed badly. the lawyers are the big beneficiaries of this, not the people. innovations should be protected, but in a limited, very specific way.

[kengineer]

9. Nice reasonable response

I agree with most of what you said.

[DEMActivist]

13. I have to disagree here...

Do you not think that software programs are the intellectual property of the author?

Computer programs come from pure thought and knowledge. You think the author of a computer program should earn nothing from their work, nor have a way to protect it?

The same is true for authors. You think Will Pitt should have no way to protect (and profit from) his work?

You think it's OK for Ann Coulter to take Will Pitt's work, claim it as hers, put it in a book and make a fortune from his words?

[paulsbc]

69. protection

in the form of copyright, yes, not the concept realized in code.

for example, one click shopping. you really think that the business method of one click purchase should be a patent?

now, the Amazon code that does it should be protected, you can't just copy/paste and use it, but if you develop your own one click purchase, from scrath, why should that idea get protection?

[billyskank]

77. That's not what software patents are about, dude.

Should the author of a computer program own the rights to it? Probably yes. But should somebody be able to hold the rights to an algorithm? Should, for example, whoever thought up the quicksort algorithm have been able to own the intellectual rights? Going further, should somebody be able to hold the rights to a concept? To illustrate the idea, British Telecom a while ago tried to assert their rights over the concept of a hyperlink. Is that right? Those are the sorts of issues thrown up by software patenting.

[Paschall]

23. Ideas cannot be patented

Where did you get that idea?

If I'm not mistaken the term "intellectual property rights" is merely the European term for "copyright." The coverage and rights are largely the same, though the Berne Convention is more progressive than US copyright law.

By the way, thanks for suggesting that I be removed from the face of the Earth "in the most painful method available" for claiming the right to be paid for my work.

[calm_blue_ocean]

78. Speaking as a patent attorney, I disagree

I think we need to cut back on patent rights by eliminating patent protection for stuff (ideas, products, processes, call-it-what-you-will) that would have been created/invented even if the inventor had never been born.

To put it the reverse way, your patent is only valid if nobody in the world would have come up with what you came up with within 5 or 10 years of you.

This way, we reward people who are truly ahead of their time (however broad their contributions), but no reward for engineers who do things that will be done by other engineers within a couple of years.

This would require either refinement or outright change of "obviousness" law. It would also eviscerate lots and lots and lots of patents (but not patents to those who are truly ahead of their time).

[redeye]

5. There's a story I once read that illustrated that

In a nutshell, the idea is this: there's a society that has no technology for artificial lighting. Then, on one day someone invents the candle, and gets a whole lot of money for his invention. Candle factories open up, many otherwise-impossible actiosn are done under candle light, etc. Then, sometime later someone else invents the light bulb. This person is vilified; the candle workers' union goes absolutely nuts, the candle corporations are doing their best to prevent this progress, and meanwhile people discover how the inventor of the candle has patented not only the candle but also operations done under candle light, financial transactions done under candle light, etc.

[kengineer]

10. Indeed

I don't seek to become rich. I seek to enrich the world with a better world order...

But I can only do so by influencing my local community. If the rest of the world wants to copy it, it's up to them.

[redeye]

14. You might not...

...but all corporations (including those drug companies that spend tens of billions per drug that gets approved and mass-produced) and most people do.

The problem is that intellectual property rights basically violate freedom of thought and bans on filesharing and so on violate freedom of information. This is another of those cases when the government can do better than the free market; it'll be far easier for the government to pay, say, 10¢ per song downloaded and $1 per movie. Given the volume of sharing on Kazaa, we're talking about a few billions per year (IOW, several dollars or tens of dollars per person per year).

[Paschall]

24. Several reactions

1) The problem with drug and similar patents is not patent law but corporate "personhood" and the laws that allow corporations to pay inventors and artists for their creations as "work for hire," meaning with simple wages rather than royalties on sales. I maintain that if doctors and biochemists held the patents now being exploited by drug corporations, we would see cheaper drug prices. And I think it would probably be easier to reach international agreements on generics.

2) There are no guaranteed "freedoms" of thought or information. I don't see how an author's right to a portion of the income from each novel he sells prevents you from thinking. And a symphony or dance tune is not "information." You want information, you'll have to buy the score. But there are intellectual property rights on that, too! ;-)

[redeye]

27. Corporate personhood is not really the problem

The corporations are the ones who foot the bill for the research required, and let's not forget that for every medicine that gets approved and marketed, thousands don't. I've read that a corporation pays 50 million dollars per medicine it manages to sell.

However, you're right about the biochemists and doctors being exploited. Who does even know the names of the people who invented, say, AZT?

As for freedoms of thought and information, I'm talking mainly about people thinking abotu something and then finding out they can't do anything with it because somebody thought it up before them, and about me not being allowed to send strings of 0's and 1's encoded in a certain way to other people.

Let's say it that way: if cars could be duplicated, should duplicating cars be considered stealing?

[Paschall]

28. Let's say it this way

Is there any fundamental difference between strings of 1s and 0s and lines of regular, little spots of ink in 26 or so various shapes on white paper?

Yeah, it's disappointing you can't sell that requiem you've written, isn't it? Too bad Mozart got exactly those same notes down on paper first. Better luck next time.

[Not a robought]

30. Perhaps some might be feeling a bit guilty about

their Kazaa downloads and hoping some consensus here can help them overcome the guilty thoughts from their desire to take and not give back perhaps. That is if they can feel any guilt at all.

[redeye]

31. I'm not talking abotu selling

As I said, it's possible to both let filesharing continue and allow artists to profit from their work - the idea is simply to turn the government's role from the party that ensures people pay to the party that pays.

[Sufi Marmot]

29. Drug companies depend on publically funded research...

The corporations are the ones who foot the bill for the research required, and let's not forget that for every medicine that gets approved and marketed, thousands don't. I've read that a corporation pays 50 million dollars per medicine it manages to sell.
Yes, but keep in mind that drug companies don't do research in a vacuum, rather they draw upon an immense body of public (taxpayer-funded) scientific research on which to base their drug discovery projects. We (the taxpayer) fund 90% of the grunt work for biotech and pharmaceutical companies, through NIH and NSF-funded academic research at universities. I'm not saying it's a bad system, but like most big industries, biotech and pharma get a big fat government subsidy, so when they complain about how much it costs to develop a new drug, it could be much worse...



However, you're right about the biochemists and doctors being exploited. Who does even know the names of the people who invented, say, AZT?
I wouldn't shed any tears for them either - they ususally start their own tiny biotech companies which either fold after a few years, or get bought out by the bigger ones. Academic researchers play that game just as well as anyone else...At worst, they get asked to consult for or serve on the board of directors of pharmaceutical/drug companies...

-SM

[Isome]

42. AZT

It was invented (synthesized) by a professor named Jerome Horowitz in 1964 under a GRANT from NIH - National Institutes of Health. Glaxo actually bought it to use on pet cats.

It was the NIH that discovered HIV in '84 and asked the pharmaceutical companies to send them all the anti-retrovirus drugs they had, so they could figure out which drug would kill the HIV virus. That's when they found that the drug created under their auspices, AZT, was the one. Our government asked Glaxo to do further testing on it, but they said no.

Here comes taxpayer-funded NIH to the resuce, in the person of Dr. Hiroaki Mitsuya. He did the experiments, and we once again asked Glaxo to do more. This time on humans. They said no.

But, not days after the word was out about the success of Dr. Mitsuya, Glaxo filed a patent in BRITAIN for the discovery of AZT. Since they bought it way back when, they did own it, though they incurred none of the risks involved with it.

Is it just me, or is that not unbelievably immoral?! I'm a true liberal, so I may just be in the minority opinion.

[Muddleoftheroad]

48. Work

If you choose to work for a company, you choose to abide by the work rules -- including work for hire. Not all companies handle this in the same way, but those are your options.

[kengineer]

50. Well then, my next post involves limits on earnings...

Thus the whole puzzle begins to come together. I believe no person should be allowed to earn more than some reasonable upper limit AND then a flat tax should be implemented. Progressive taxes exist solely to penalize those who are earning TOO MUCH. We should, therefore, have all discussions based on what is a reasonable upper salary for any person in any profession. Just as we have a minimum wage (which should be higher), we should have a maximum wage. For the sake of the rest of this paper let's say the maximum wage, based on a 12% flat tax is $350,000 per year.

But next, fully understand that I don't wish to step on freedoms for any given local community. Let's say that there is a company that wishes to give it's CEO a 1.5 million dollar bonus check at the end of the year just because he's so damn awesome a person. Well who decides that... ALL the employees of the company do. For example it's put to a simple vote and if 80% of the employees feel he should get the bonus (rather than the employees getting it) then he gets some mathmatically adjusted amount accordingly.

Essentially the employees get to vote as to whether THEY will get the bonus or the CEO, board member, etc. will get it.

This coupled with the total freedom of ideas, writings, and information would make such a F*cking beautiful world, my god I dream about it.

A world where everybody gets duly compensated for the work, creative ideas, and effort they put into producing a product of any kind, but also a world that immediately shares that informtion for the betterment of the world.

[Muddleoftheroad]

52. Well, this is so misguided...

Who are you or who is society to tell me the limits on my earning power?

Now for your scenario, employees don't run a company. Often, they have no idea what a CEO or manager does. Why should they make any decisions?

All you are doing is guaranteeing a round of layoffs prior to the vote. You fire a whole bunch of people and make it clear you will fire the rest if the bonus doesn't get voted to you.

As for the rest, dream on.

[Paschall]

11. Intellectual property rights also protect individuals...

...artists, musicians, and writers. "Efficiency" is not usually one of their goals. Eliminating their rights to their creations will not ensure you "better, cheaper" paintings, sculptures, novels, or symphonies.

I disagree with you. The Berne Convention, to which the US is a signatory, helps ensure that those who contribute to the community by producing unique, artistic works actually get paid for their efforts. Seems a no-brainer to me.

[Merlin]

15. Please don't clutter this board up with such crap as this. n/t

.

[redeye]

18. You're so rational, so coherent...

...can you please elucidate your splendid post a little more?

[Paschall]

19. Crap

That was the word I was looking for. Thanks, Merlin ;-)

Funny how easy it is to suggest artists live off the "good" they are doing the community. I don't suppose we could also suggest steelworkers or construction workers also live off air because they contribute to realizing an architect's dream?

[DemBones DemBones]

20. Nobody should be able to patent a plant, animal, or other

organism, as is now being done with genetically modified organisms (GMOs) but beyond that, I think that we need patent and copyright laws. People should be able to profit from their ideas and work. and not have their ideas and work stolen from them. I'd probably support a change in patent laws to make it easier for prescription drugs to go generic but I think the originating pharmaceutical company needs to make money off a new drug first so that companies will have incentive to continue R & D.

[Paschall]

21. Agreed on that point about patenting of life or life forms

:thumbsup:

[leftofthedial]

22. over my dead body

will you take my copyrights away.

it's my work and my livelihood.

[Not a robought]

25. Ah yes

wouldn't it be wonderful if I could pay for my rent from my abundant bounty of good will I've saved up. For dinner I will feast on community betterment groceries.

Unfortunately neither is the case unless I hand over cash for both. It is work involved in producing intellectual property, how should such work be compensated? Or are you suggesting that we should abolish considerations that such work should be considered compensatable? How is that fair?

Is the enrichment to humanity by an artist of the multitudes of disciplines any less important than the work of a grocery clerk? Yet in many cases now that artist is paid less than the clerk but the artist still goes on and still contributes regardless.

[maggrwaggr]

26. as a copyright holder, I'd like to say that you're full of shit

bad idea.

[not systems]

32. corporate strangle hold

It is funny and sad to see writers and artists
used to defend the right of corporations to section
off large areas of pure science in the fields of
genetics and computer science.

Knowledge that would have once been the natural
right of all in more enlighted times is now produced
in corporate science and patent mills backed by
armys of lawyers and purchased congress people.

To all posting here about there own lifes work you
are missing the truth that unless you are Bill Gates
or similar you little plot of IP is shack on the
masters plantation.

It will not be suprising at all to see that center
of inovation move out of the US and to countries
like China and India that are less burdened by
intelectual property law pirates.

[Not a robought]

33. Mmmm right

I am sure many a Hollywood executive is losing sleep right now due to the onslaught of Beijing and Bollywood cinema bound to overtake our screens.

No, what is sad is that you overlook writers and artists in your argument against intellectual property.

[not systems]

34. Hollywood

I made no mention of Hollywood.

To confuse Terminator 3 with mathmatical
algorithms and genetic sequences is the
problem I was pointing out.

It is sad that you think it's sad that I think
turning science and innovation in to a private
preserve of the corporations has anything to
do with film, books, or music.

What arguement did you feel I made about art?

None.

I'm talking about patents not copyright.

[Not a robought]

35. This one:

To all posting here about there own lifes work you are missing the truth that unless you are Bill Gates or similar you little plot of IP is shack on the masters plantation.

Rude. My own life's work relates to the arts and sciences in making cinema. You are ignoring that mathematical algorithms go into making the technology which allows for visual effects and digital processes that make Terminator 3.

As for genetic sequences and patents on life forms I agree, that is wrong. The rest of it is bunk. Try separating the arts and sciences in this argument over intellectual property, you'd be the first.

[not systems]

36. digital filters

Are you suggesting that DSP algorithms should be
fair game for endless lawsuits.

The fact that you make a creative use of some
pure math should not give you the right to sue
the next person that develops a similar filter.

Algorithms are exactly what I am talking about
patenting them overturns thousands of years of
scientific progress.

As for you own plot I hope it pays your bills but
if you believe it is good for software inovation
to unlease armies of litigious patent pirates
buying up failed companies patents in order to
sue others using similar independently developed
software, I will continue to disagree.

[Not a robought]

37. Here I'll give you some examples and you can respond

Let's say you developed an algorithm to process effects and decided not to release it under the general public license and would rather license it off to a product.

Are you ok with it if:

1) I decide to take your algorithm outright in spite of the above and stick a new label on it and claim it as my own?

2) Take your product and distribute it myself without your consent or license fee payback?

2) Use it to create final content without license fee payback?

(Because if you are we should talk)

The final paragraph is a straw man. I have yet to hear an alternative solution to assure a company or an individual that they can safely part with their own without feeling unsure they won't be compensated for time/hours/effort/expenses/risks/losses. I mean where do you think intellectual property comes from?

The real problem is when you have a lock out. Where a company will go to lengths to shut down any possibility of a competing product or property. i.e. Microsoft against open source Linux. Where for example, a Universal buys mp3.com out and puts an alternative method of distribution out of business to maintain the old greying 1000 lbs. gorilla called the status quo.

That's got nothing to do with this airy fairy abolish intellectual property and patents argument but everything to do with the real dilemma trying to be presented here.

[not systems]

38. ok

If you are writing and selling software you own your
implimentation. You sell binaries or source with a
license of your choice.

1) If a person steals your source code or resells your
binaries it is just stealing. If someone independently
impliments a similar algorithm and sells or gives it away
that is their right.

2) Stealing.

3) A violation of your licensing terms and hopefully a contract.

I believe software source is protected by copyright and
contract law.

Patenting algorithms and pure math is unenlighted crap that
will snuff out the freedom to code and create software unless
you have a huge patent warchest and lot's of money for lawyers.

Large corporations have lots of patents and use them like
nuclear weapons in a mutually assured destruction scenario
with each other.

You may be right that this is an antitrust issue but that legal
idea is on life support if not dead in this corporate state.

[Old and In the Way]

45. When designers and scientists sign on to work for a corporation,

they sign away their IP rights, at least that is the usual case. Not shocker here. When they work at universities or think tanks, the same thing applies. They are given a wage for their IP.

OTOH, those that work outside these institutions and do it themselves, should be justly rewarded for their efforts.

Look at Dean Kaman....

[Isome]

39. The real problem...

It's the enforcement of intellectual property rights and patents that take the form of extortion by the WTO that is detrimental to mankind and impedes the growth of entire nations.

Here's an example:

To receive aid from the WTO/IMF (they're interchangeable), countries have to agree to a set of conditions, on average 111 of them, that effectually restrict those countries from protecting their workers or indigenous industries. They devised the Trade-Related Intellectual Property Rights, or TRIPS to penalize countries that try to offset the economy-breaking interest rates by finding products cheaper than those sold by the Western corporations that flood the country soon after signing on the dotted line.

In 2000, the Office of the United States Trade Representative in Geneva threatened Argentina for opening its borders to the sale of licensed medicines because TRIPS prohibits them from, in this instance, buying outside of the zones the WTO has categorized by brand name and "market segments". Though the Argentinian goverment found a cheaper supplier for medical drugs, the WTO rushed in to protect the revenues of pharmaceutical giants, like Glaxo-Wellcome.

[Not a robought]

40. That's exactly it. Thank you

[Isome]

41. This stuff consumes me...

It's all done out in the open, but most people aren't aware, even in the vaguest sense, of how it thoroughly affects their lives, and the lives of people in developing countries that we arrogantly & ignorantly say we're "helping".

Instead of the other redundant polls and threads denigrating Dem presidential candidates, I'd like to see more substantive discussions like this one (even though the originator's premise was, IMO, a bit skewed).

[TahitiNut]

72. It's even deeper than that, IMHO.

The abuses of IP seem (to me) to hinge on the notion that 'property' can own 'property' and that "Intellectual Property" can be treated like real or tangible property. I challenge both notions.

First of all, I'd promulgate a treatment under law that does not allow 'title' to IP to be separated from the 'intellect' of which it is a part. In other words, for there to be any IP, it must be irrevocably attached to the individual(s) from whose intellects it was conceived. It's not a tangible property; it cannot be 'possessed' in anything like the same sense. The remunerative use of this IP would be through direct licensing of limited duration; a maximum of 3 years renewable would be my choice for nonexclusive use and 6 years nonrenewable for exclusive use. The human owner, of course, would not be required to license it and would be able to use it exclusively themself for as long as they live. IP would become public domain (no inheritance) at the expiration of the owner's life or any use agreemennt, whichever came first. I would, at a minimum, put an abrupt end to the notion that a corporation can hold 'title' to IP, and outlaw the notion that all IP of an employee can be coercively ceded to a corporation or any other individual.

Insofar as litigation over infringement, I'd require that the costs of any litigation (including legal fees) be borne by the defendant if the plaintiff prevails. This would then permit law firms to litigate on behalf of the IP owner on a contingency basis far more often, thus protecting the IP owner against the "deep-pocketed".

[Adjoran]

43. You will need to amend the Constitution

which provides in Article I, Section 8: "The Congress shall have Power . . . To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries."

Notice the Founders' intent of "limited times," antithetical to the usual practice of automatically granting extensions - the "Mickey Mouse" clause of Congress!

Please notice also that the Constitutional protections are not purposed to protect the owners of intellectual property, but the general "progress" of the same. In those days, poetry was often privately owned by subscription or patronage. Copywrite's purpose is to provide a means of income apart from private direct endowment, NOT to confer riches upon the copywrite holder.

[Muddleoftheroad]

49. Huh?

So the purpose of copywrite isn't to give me more than just enough for subsistance? What is the constitutional cutoff in your mind?

[kengineer]

51. Greed and excess

This is the topic of my new post. It's simply that people want to be "super rich" and that is the essence of the problem.

Disney recently extended it's intellectual property or copyrights for another 20 years or something... so it's going on 100 years... Geesh.

[TahitiNut]

74. Notice that the Constitution does not ...

... pretend that such an 'exclusive right' is transferable or that it is anything other than (as all 'rights') a human right. 'Rights' are, in the Constitutional sense, inalienable. While the state may, with due process, restrict the exercise of one's rights (absent cruel and unusual), it nowhere even accommodates the separation of rights from the human in whom they are inherent. Thus, the "corporatization" of such rights, one could argue, is at minimum "extra-Constitutional" and not supported.

In my view, the vast majority of abuses would be eliminated if the notion of corporatized IP 'rights' were debunked, and IP rights were made nontransferable just like any other 'right'.

[Pepperbelly]

53. I disagree with this totally ...

Why would a writer write or a musician compose if they did not own their own work? I believe that this would lead to the death of cultural exposition and creative endeavor.

[kengineer]

54. They deserve due compensation

They deserve to earn their fair amount...

The giant sucking sound needs to stop. Another words once they've earned the fair amount, the milking beyond that is done and the intellectual property is given back to the world since it originated from it to begin with.

Also, the record companies typically OWN the little artist peoples... it's the same old tyranny game. Those with the power manipulating the laws and little people to maintain their power. It's a sick system you are defending.

Intellectual tyranny and Financial tyranny is the game of planet Earth 2003... it's been that way for centuries. Freedom is nothing more than an illusion.

However, the way you put it is sounds so innocent. Enter reality sister!

If somebody abuses somebody's creation to sell a product that the original artist disagrees with, I believe they should certainly have the right to put an end to that.

[Pepperbelly]

55. it is brother and ...

as a writer, no one but me owns what I produce. To merely confiscate my labor after someone decides I have received "fair compensation" is piracy.

[Trek234]

60. Uh huh

Just like it has in China right? Because we all know the Chinese have dead culture in the arts.

[Keithpotkin]

65. you obviously arent a writer or a musician

people do not create because they want something from it...people simply want to create, its mankind's instinct, dispite the "competition instinct" bullshit u hear from libertarian ubercapitalist types...mankind will create even with out compensation...ask any artist and u will find this to be true. it is simply that our current system does not reward all people who create evenly.

[Trek234]

66. Exactly

The real artists rarely see much return if any, but they still create.

[Pepperbelly]

71. see my reply to this poster ...

goes to you as well.

[Pepperbelly]

70. and you are obviously naive and

do not face the task of feeding either yourself or a family.

I write novels. Poorly. I have been a musician for 40 years.

And you sit there tap-tap-tapping at your keyboard and sharpshooting me when you do not have clue fucking one about me. Right now, I am searching through my palace trying to scrounge up enough pennies to buy a bag of leg quarters to feed me and mine until I get a paycheck. So forgive me if I do not tke your sarcasm in good spirits. In fact, forgive me if I laugh bitterly at your fucking childish and immature postition. In fact, forgive me if I suggest that you should perhaps consider what positions others might find themselves in before rattling off insensitive and punk-assed, ivory tower posts.

[Trek234]

57. Patents need to be ended for drug companies

The fact that a company can produce a life saving drug and force all others not to make it for a decade is un fucking believeable. Not only that - they can charge whatever the hell they want for it thus killing those who need it but can't afford it, whereas they could with a generic.

The "no more innovation motivation" argument in this regard is BS. The CEOs of the corporations along with other execs do jack shit to create ANY of those drugs. It is usally the low ranking doctor/scientist/whatver that has a fixed wage that does all the work. More than likely they will never see a dime of whatever large sums of money the drug makes.

So what if the drug companies say "no more profit then we are gone"? Fine - to hell with them. Get a government R&D program going for medical drugs and hire those people who were let go. They can be offered to SAME fixed wage the corporation was paying, and bonuses for X good work could even be thrown in.

The only difference? The government won't be in it anywhere NEAR the level of the corporation for the money. Plus generics could be made.

[AP]

62. Compulsory licensing would be good enough.

[Trek234]

67. As long as the compulsory licensing

Had a fixed monetary amount.

[AP]

79. That's how they do it with music.

...

[spanone]

59. So anyone who's talent is in the intellectual rights should just

give it to whom??? You obviously are not a writer, of books, songs, poems or an inventor. Why don't you just contribute YOUR salary to the national cause. Absurd.

[AP]

61. 2 for 2, for dumb posts this morning. If there were no IP

rights, there'd be no inventions, and no art. The world tried this before and it didn't work. IP rights are simply ways to encourge and reward intellectual labor. If you don't reward a form of labour, people won't do it. If you supported Cesar Chavez's table grape strike, you should be on board with IP rights.

The key to IP rights is vigorous enforcement for REASONABLE periods of time. The Sonny Bono copyright extension is not reasonable.

Another key is compulsory licensing at reasonable rights. If it's good enough for Holland and Holland and Lamont Dozier, it's good enough for vital AIDS drugs.

[TahitiNut]

76. IP laws are intended to benefit the public.

They were/are enacted to ensure that (1 - "the means") the creators/innovators themselves receive financial encouragement, not others, not wealth, and not in perpetuity, and thereby that (2 - "the ends") the fruits of such innovation are made most widely available to the public and available at a fair cost. It was that goal ("the ends") that ethically justified the investment of public funds in registration and enforcement of IP whereby the "owner" of IP (no longer the innovator) has control over its distribution and use. Instead, the system is gamed to the point that the greatest wealth is accumulated, not by the innovators themselves, but those with oligarchical control over the means of distribution and has very little to do with innovation itself. That control is not being wielded to make a more abundant array of such innovations available to the public but, like the DeBeers diamond strategy, that they are limited and artificially overpriced. The public's investment in such "industries" is enormous -- in both price and infrastructure ("externalities") -- and the intent of IP protections is being frustrated.

[Trek234]

68. Patents go too far sometimes

You know there is a native american people in the US right now (what is left of them) that uses a pigeon pee for some kind of medical purpose. They have for as long as they have been around.

Well a US corporation caught on to that, and created a pigeon pee extract product. They were able to patent it.

Now the native americans have to be pay them a royalty everytime they use there own.

Just another example of patents gone mad.

[blondeatlast]

75. While we're at it,

let's bring back slavery too. Same sort of thinking applies.

Sheesh.

As a writer who has actually been paid on occasion, this idea just stinks.

[Name removed]

80. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Character Assassin]

81. You have no idea what you're talking about.

The world would see a renaissance of progress not seen in a long damn time upon this planet.

What do you think the past 20 years or so have represented? What are you using to post messages here?

We would actually be able to develop the best products for the least amount of money possible.

Your contention has nothing to do with that conclusion. There is no correlation between ending IP rights and cheap product development.

EFFICIENCY would become the focus of companies as they produce a fine product or service for customers.

Efficiency IS the focus of companies when they produce. Those that fail to be efficient in this manner are known as 'ex-companies', 'bankrupticies' and/or 'failures'.

Done.

More like overdone.

[John_H]

83. Both of your threads say a lot for DU

I don't know kengineer well enough to tell whether he's a freeper trying to get those wacky DUers to sound like a bunch of commie pinkos, or whether he's just taken intro to marxism and hasn't really had time to think about waht he's saying, or if he's just a dope--but I'm heartened that the overwhelming majority of DUers understand what progressivism is all about. Progressives believe in enlightened capitalism with a begign government playing a vital role in it.

The reason, of course, that freepers love to call us commies is that (at leats subconsciously) they recognize the uglines of their economic approach--to those born of opportunity go the spoils.

Sure, our one percenters, in their inimitably cute way, think income capping and ending all patents are a great ideas (but, hey, if they didn't they would be condemned to being twenty percented, and how unrad would that be) But it's good to see that the kind of liberalism and progressivism that made America great, despite periodic Republican attempts to turn us into 16th century England, is very much the order of the day at DU.

[juajen]

84. I think it would have the opposite effect.

After all, what is the incentive to invent?

[Redleg]

85. Efficiency is already a major focus of companies.

The more efficient, the less labor (and other resources) needed to produce a unit of goods. In my opinion, the pursuit of greater efficiencies sometimes leads to the sacrifice of greater effectiveness.