Patents are crazy

[Double]

Do our fellow human beings really need that incentive to be inventfull and artistic? I think human nature in itself is more than enough to propel the species forward. If it isnt, why try to bring it about artificially with state violence.
Further more, there is still buisness oppertunity for the original creater, for being first, and the trust it ensures.

Patents are crazy

[Brutha]

Do our fellow human beings really need that incentive to be inventfull and artistic?

Patent aren't about rewarding artistic things.

Further more, there is still buisness oppertunity for the original creater, for being first, and the trust it ensures.

Then why do so many people use skype with wasn't even among the first 10 in voice-over-IP?

Patents aren't needed to encourage people to have ideas. They are however needed to get venture capital for testing some ideas if you don't want the state to pay those costs with tax money directly.
Ideas are a dime a dozen. Most ideas fail when you try to put them into practice.
You need money to develop something like third generation DNA sequencing.

[Double]

I never thought of it from that perspective, thank you.

I think if the capital is there, its going to be invested. You dont need patents in order for capital to form. Capital can be anything from saved up food, to saved up money in the more advanced economy.
The rule, that a patent is needed in order to secure capital is only valid in the world of patents. No one is going to invest if there is not a patent, for fear of someone patenting the idea, and thus being in "legal" position of shutting down the project.
In the patent-free world, everyone would still be competing on equal means, but not having to spend time and money on securing patents first.

[funchy]

Originally Posted by Double

Do our fellow human beings really need that incentive to be inventfull and artistic?

No, but research does cost money. To get that capital, and then to develop the idea to the final product, depends on those loaning you the money thinking you might be able to pay it back. How can you pay it back if the moment someone else sees your invention, there are 100 rip-offs out there?

I think human nature in itself is more than enough to propel the species forward.

That implies all patents/ideas propel humankind forward. I am not sure how the Shamwow, OxyClean, or Slapchop does that. Or the countless patents on military hardware -- finding new and better ways to cut, slice, and puncture human beings in the name of battle. Or the patents made in the name of 'food' which results in global monopolies such as Monsanto or help promote things like factory farming.

If it isnt, why try to bring it about artificially with state violence.

What violence is there in patents? If you violate someone else's patent, nobody shoots you. You can be sued, but that's a civil matter.

Further more, there is still buisness oppertunity for the original creater, for being first, and the trust it ensures.

That implies that the people using the new idea will use the version from the original inventor. If there is no patent, how do you even establish who is "first"? And in America, where people can't even find US states on a map, I am not confident they'll remember Mr So-and-so invented this product first and deserves the business more than Mr Secondperson. We don't even buy American products anymore.... and then we wonder why 10-20% of the workforce cannot find a job.

Patents are crazy

Then money, markets, buyers, loan officers, finance, and the whole concept of generating original ideas are all crazy.

[Double]

Greetings funchy,

Originally Posted by funchy

No, but research does cost money. To get that capital, and then to develop the idea to the final product, depends on those loaning you the money thinking you might be able to pay it back. How can you pay it back if the moment someone else sees your invention, there are 100 rip-offs out there?

If the thing in question requires a vast amount of capital to enter production, there is bound to be less competitors from the beginning. Not many are willing to risk the capital before the market potential has been truly shown, through actions of the original contributor, in which case he/or this company will be well equipped with customers and experience to handle any comming competition.

Originally Posted by funchy

That implies all patents/ideas propel humankind forward. I am not sure how the Shamwow, OxyClean, or Slapchop does that. Or the countless patents on military hardware -- finding new and better ways to cut, slice, and puncture human beings in the name of battle. Or the patents made in the name of 'food' which results in global monopolies such as Monsanto or help promote things like factory farming.

Hold on, im saying patents are bad. Implied was one argument people have for patents, that patents are needed as an incentive for people to come up with ideas. Which is just ludicrus, ideas happen all the time. In the natural-state of mind, the "accomplish more for less" machine is always running, ticking, churning, thinking of ways to improve.

Originally Posted by funchy

What violence is there in patents? If you violate someone else's patent, nobody shoots you. You can be sued, but that's a civil matter.

Yes but there is a reason individuals choose to comply with what the court orders. Ie. pay fines and such.

Originally Posted by funchy

That implies that the people using the new idea will use the version from the original inventor. If there is no patent, how do you even establish who is "first"? And in America, where people can't even find US states on a map, I am not confident they'll remember Mr So-and-so invented this product first and deserves the business more than Mr Secondperson. We don't even buy American products anymore.... and then we wonder why 10-20% of the workforce cannot find a job.

Maybe they will copy, manufacture and sell the original product, maybe they will come up with an improvement -in their view- to it, and market that instead, or both.
What it comes down to is, will the consumer buy this or that? We dont know. All we know is that some people like to buy the cheapest they can find, others like to pay a bit more confident they get a better deal.
So anyone should be free to contribute,compete, improve, effectivise, make cheaper, you name it; and patents among other things hinders this.

[Brutha]

I think if the capital is there, its going to be invested.

It's about where the capital will get invested.
Does it go into a bigger advertising budget or does it go into research?

At the moment there talk about having a goal that 3% of the GDP goes into research and there people who hope to archive it in the coming years.
Advertising is a zero sum game. Mining more resources is also no way to go forever because we have a finitive amount of resources on the planet.
The idea is that in the long run the amount of money that gets invested in research determines growth of wealth.
Therefore there's public policy to create incentives for people to invest more money into R&D.

Now there're different patents. For example I don't think that software patents are needed. Software doesn't have research costs in the same way that the development of new drugs or new gene sequencing has research costs.

I also don't want patents on genes because I don't think that there should be public policy incentives of the kind of things that Monsanto does.

Then there might also be reasons to have different patents lengths. There a few different ways to create incentives for research investment.
You can directly pay for research with tax money through a grant process. You can create tax deductions to get companies to invest more into R&D.
Then you can do patents for different field with a variety of time lengths.

For different areas you have also other things that you can do with laws. You can reduce liabilities of producers, reduce bureaucracy etc.

Good public policy should use a mix of those things.

Implied was one argument people have for patents, that patents are needed as an incentive for people to come up with ideas. Which is just ludicrus, ideas happen all the time.

Most people don't know how innovation works. Most ideas that look good on paper don't work.
Well, of course my idea is different, we will see in two years who it turns out
On the same token, not every idea that works looks good on paper.

At the moment there maybe 18 companies trying to get third generation sequencing working with will reduce the price of gen sequencing by 10x-100x in one/two years.
15 of those companies will probably not make enough money to refinance their investments.
But there might be one of those companies that grows to a billion dollar company. That dream gets investors to provide funds for the companies. If there wouldn't be patents those companies probably couldn't dream of becoming billion dollar companies.

[Trezker]

My general theory is that patents make the strong stronger and the weak weaker.

Strong companies have the collection of old patents and the resources to collect more and sue the crap out of anyone trying to do something new without paying them.

New companies have no legal leverage, whenever they try to do something new the strong companies send an army of lawyers going through the new tech looking for things that fall under old patents and then they smash the newcomers to ruin and take over any new patents generated.

[Double]

Originally Posted by Brutha

It's about where the capital will get invested.

Yes but from a moral standpoint that's exclusively for the owner of the capital to decide *edit* -Without government intervention that attempts to change incentives (tax credits, regulation, tax hikes, patents only in some sectors etc.) for investment. It is simply too subjective, it is downright economic planning and history dictates this fails *edit*

Originally Posted by Brutha

If there wouldn't be patents those companies probably couldn't dream of becoming billion dollar companies

Well, there will still be casinos for these guys
But i look at it this way, apparantly the market is not ready for that third generation sequencing stuff, either technology is not advanced enough or who knows, i mean why is it so damn expensive, is there really an actual demand?

Why are people willing to take these longshots? It seems as if precious capital is being wasted, because of patents, on dreams of multi-million monopolies, not in a quest to fulfill actual demands on the market.

[Brutha]

Yes but from a moral standpoint that's exclusively for the owner of the capital to decide *edit* -Without government intervention that attempts to change incentives (tax credits, regulation, tax hikes, patents only in some sectors etc.) for investment.

That depends on where your morals come from. If you are an utilitarist, there a goal to create public policy in such a way that there are fewer negative sum games and more positive sum games.

It is simply too subjective, it is downright economic planning and history dictates this fails *edit*

The history of the Soviet Union tells us that central planning has it's problems.
Patents are however about shifting incentives around to allow decentral decision making that creates innovation.

But i look at it this way, apparantly the market is not ready for that third generation sequencing stuff, either technology is not advanced enough or who knows, i mean why is it so damn expensive, is there really an actual demand?

If nobody would research in that area, nobody would fill a patent and nobody would produce products.
If you however have one company that successfully creates a good product, then

But i look at it this way, apparantly the market is not ready for that third generation sequencing stuff, either technology is not advanced enough or who knows, i mean why is it so damn expensive, is there really an actual demand?

Nobody can say exactly how much actual demand there would be if you could buy your complete genome information for 200$.

Seeking drugs to cure cancer is a similar business. Everybody in pharma knows that 99% of drug candidates will fail.
Those ideas that succeed have to pay for all the attempts that failed.

[Double]

Originally Posted by Brutha

That depends on where your morals come from. If you are an utilitarist, there a goal to create public policy in such a way that there are fewer negative sum games and more positive sum games.

My morals are based on reality. And thus they must be applied to everyone. If one thing is good for one, it must be good for all. One rule is No-one can force/tell others what to do. IF this was the case, that rule automatically eliminates the concept of free will.
For example, if i can tell you what to do, and you can tell others what to do, and these others tell me what to do, then the free-will does not exist, and no-one could tell anyone what to do to begin with. I mean, where does it start?

Originally Posted by Brutha

The history of the Soviet Union tells us that central planning has it's problems.
Patents are however about shifting incentives around to allow decentral decision making that creates innovation.

So far you have only prooved the medicinal industry benefits from patents. But what if that whole industry is a fraud, or one big misunderstanding at best?
Rather than applying external artificialities like medicine in order to fix a disease, is it not better to change the conditions which brought the disease about to begin with?

I think the truth is, that that which keeps us healthy, is only what can make us healthy. Which explains why there has never been found a "cure" for cancer. There is no such thing, its merely a disease derived from an unhealthy lifestyle.

Originally Posted by Brutha

If nobody would research in that area, nobody would fill a patent and nobody would produce products.
If you however have one company that successfully creates a good product, then

Well i dont know how ideas come about, other than from myself. I know that the better aqainted i become with my work, the more i begin to think of ways to improve the process, increase productivty.
What it comes down to is, allow individual freedom, let people work as they see fit, and there is going to be alot of development and new products comming about.

[DaveM]

It can cost lots of money to invent something brand new, but not that much to reproduce it. It is true due to brand name awarness, production and distrubtion networks already in place it can be hard in some fields for a new company to just reproduce an item and sell it successful.

What no patents can cause companies in a field to stop doing the very expensive process of inventing brand new products and just spend their time tinkering with existing ones to make them slightly better or different. A new product is much more valuable to society.

Without patents technology would be much less advance than it is now.

Patents are given out way too easily. You have companies thats sole purpose is to make up patents, not to produce anything, but to sue companies that due.

That probably more of a problem with corporate law and endless appeals than. For all the complaints you hear about medical lawsuits, corporate law is way, way worse and drives the costs of all goods up.

[Double]

Hello DaveM

Originally Posted by DaveM

A new product is much more valuable to society.

Im sorry, compared to what?

Originally Posted by DaveM

Without patents technology would be much less advance than it is now.

I seriously doubt that. Going all the way back to the steam engine - this is from a book i recently picked up reading, "Against intellectual monopoly" - James Watt, in the early days around 1768, were busy securing patents, not developing and producing steam engines which he had invented. From that period of time, he and his buisness partner Mathew Boulton spent most of their time combating rivals through the legal system, compared to the time that could be spent in investing and creating steam engines. It wasnt untill the early 1800s when their patents ran out that, first of all James Watt was able to improve his own invention, because another patent ran out, but also other competitors were able to freely create and distribute their steam engines. However, the competition was more focused on price than quality as opposed to Watt and Boulton, which meant THEY had increasing orders still, a good buisness.
There is the story of Jonathan Hornblower who had a superior engine early on, but was bankrupted through the legal system by Watt and Boulton.

Had patents never existed the steam age could have taken place almost half a generation earlier.
Today, buisnesses and inventors have only become better acquainted with the system, the laws more intrusive, which leads to further stiflement of economic advancement.

[Brutha]

If one thing is good for one, it must be good for all.

I don't hold that belief.
I might enjoy solve math problems while another person might not enjoy solving math problems.

So far you have only prooved the medicinal industry benefits from patents. But what if that whole industry is a fraud, or one big misunderstanding at best?

Than nobody who isn't a fraud would be harmed by the pharma patents.

Which explains why there has never been found a "cure" for cancer.

The idea of a "cure" for cancer is problematic because cancer isn't a single illness but hundred different illnesses.
Nevertheless there some cancers that can be cured and much more cancer can be cured today than twenty years ago.

There is no such thing, its merely a disease derived from an unhealthy lifestyle.

Even a healthy lifesytle doesn't lead people to live to two hundred years.
The aging problem just can't solved without going through molecular biology.

To move to a different area, I don't think that Intel and it's competitors would spend enough money on research to uphold Moore's law where there would be no patents.

[DaveM]

Originally Posted by Double

Hello DaveM

Im sorry, compared to what?

Companies spending more time making small changes to existing products.

Individual inventors would still come up with products, they would get much less of the profits. Since companies can just copy their design they have a lot less leverage when negotiating the terms of letting the company make it. The inventor has to sell his product quickly before the people he's trying to sell the product to figure out how to designs it themselves.

Im sure a lot of the time company engineers will figure out how to copy it and produce it. Than they have no reason to pay the inventor anything and he gets nothing for all his work.

[Double]

Originally Posted by DaveM

Individual inventors would still come up with products, they would get much less of the profits. Since companies can just copy their design they have a lot less leverage when negotiating the terms of letting the company make it. The inventor has to sell his product quickly before the people he's trying to sell the product to figure out how to designs it themselves.

Yes probably some people will have less profits, since we remove their monopoly. But how is this a bad thing?

Originally Posted by DaveM

Im sure a lot of the time company engineers will figure out how to copy it and produce it. Than they have no reason to pay the inventor anything and he gets nothing for all his work.

I believe the inventor if he decides to go to a given company will be recieved with open arms and a get a hearty welcome. No company is going to pass on such know how.
Their evil intention of turning him down and trying to come up with a resemblence of his creation is going to backlash. First of all they will have to spend oodles of time and money on their own engineers to come up with it, and second of all they risk the competition simply hiring the inventionee and getting the advantage.

[Double]

Originally Posted by Brutha

I don't hold that belief.
I might enjoy solve math problems while another person might not enjoy solving math problems.

I was talking about universal rules, not personal preferences like those. I think i have defended my position on the moral law "No one can force others against their will", which was in relation to the original argument, sufficiently.

Originally Posted by Brutha

Than nobody who isn't a fraud would be harmed by the pharma patents.

The capital invested here is still wasted, since nothing true and usable would ever be produced. There is only so much capital available in a given economy. Capital that supported a fraudulent, or now failed venture is wasted, and it takes away capital from any other entrepenour. "Sorry mister, but your consumer level reuseable spacecraft will have to wait, we are trying to find a cure for cancer over here."

Originally Posted by Brutha

The idea of a "cure" for cancer is problematic because cancer isn't a single illness but hundred different illnesses.
Nevertheless there some cancers that can be cured and much more cancer can be cured today than twenty years ago.

Well lets start by removing patents. Maybe that alone will be enough to shift the human paradigm toward better hygiene in regards to what people put in their bodies(Eat), lead us toward a struggle for inner health, rather than exterior medicine that only ever deals with the symptoms not the causes. This way, maybe cases of cancer will be reduced dramatically, further reducing interest in investing in medicine, quite paradoxial.

Originally Posted by Brutha

Even a healthy lifesytle doesn't lead people to live to two hundred years.
The aging problem just can't solved without going through molecular biology.

I still dont believe there is a magical elexir that can make people live longer, but if people are wililng to invest in it and try developing it, they should go for it.
But such a venture, i suspect, in a society of patents, is bound to be about nothing but lies and deception. Capital is going to be lured in, only at the expense of every other sane buisness oppertunity who misses their oppertunity for that capital.

Originally Posted by Brutha

To move to a different area, I don't think that Intel and it's competitors would spend enough money on research to uphold Moore's law where there would be no patents.

So it costs alot of money today to develop faster smaller processors. It also happens to be a very, very big market. There will still be plenty of capital chasing these projects, in the absense of patents. Heck maybe companies will start to improve on each others inventions, work together to save money, rather than spending oodles of time and money comming up with their own ideas and contraptions however inneffecient to avoid any legal trouble.

[DaveM]

Originally Posted by Double

Yes probably some people will have less profits, since we remove their monopoly. But how is this a bad thing?

I was referring to the inventors getting less, not the company.

Originally Posted by Double

I believe the inventor if he decides to go to a given company will be recieved with open arms and a get a hearty welcome. No company is going to pass on such know how.
Their evil intention of turning him down and trying to come up with a resemblence of his creation is going to backlash. First of all they will have to spend oodles of time and money on their own engineers to come up with it, and second of all they risk the competition simply hiring the inventionee and getting the advantage.

I wish the world was as nice as you think it is. Many people are ruthless and greedy. A company might have good intentions, but not all its employees will share them.

A couple years ago I never would have believed you if you told me that a bunch of CEOs of companies, upon learning that a few product types are terrible deals for the company would not just stop acquiring them, they would instead greatly increase the rate that they did. Why? it would help them achieve a bonus, never mind that it would cause devastation to the rest of the company, not to mention society as a whole.

Society has lots of these types of people. If someone would be willing to steal a product from someone they likely won't care what impact it could have on the company.

Inventors don't just go to companies with new products, many require additional funding so they go to different investors for capital. For some of these people it can be easier to get away with stealing a product.

[Brutha]

I still dont believe there is a magical elexir that can make people live longer,

Why do you think that there are hard limits? Where should those come from?

I was talking about universal rules, not personal preferences.

If you rule would be universal it would also work for my example. That's what being universal is about.

Regardless what makes a rule universal? God?
Without one as reference point, rules always depend on context and on the specific person and what's good for one person in one context might not be good for another person in a different context.

Here the question becomes whether the context of inventions makes state invention in the form from patents a positive sum game or a negative sum game.

The capital invested here is still wasted, since nothing true and usable would ever be produced. There is only so much capital available in a given economy. Capital that supported a fraudulent, or now failed venture is wasted, and it takes away capital from any other entrepenour.

Either you can make the case that patents lead to more investment of capital and creative energy into a field or you can make a case that the opposite is the case.
If you however blame patents for increasing pharma research you shouldn't argue at the same time that patents lead to less productive research because of monopoly concerns.

I was referring to the inventors getting less, not the company.

Patents are monopoly whether they are given to individuals or to companies.

Heck maybe companies will start to improve on each others inventions, work together to save money, rather than spending oodles of time and money comming up with their own ideas and contraptions however inneffecient to avoid any legal trouble.

Companies usually sublicense each other patents to avoid legal trouble.

Inventors don't just go to companies with new products, many require additional funding so they go to different investors for capital. For some of these people it can be easier to get away with stealing a product.

I don't think that your romantic notion of the individual inventor who site at his basement and comes up with a great idea for a product and afterwards goes to a company to get his idea implanted is the way most inventions are made.
Most companies have research people on their own.

[Double]

Hello Brutha,
First i would like to point out you have quoted and replied both DaveM and myself and i dont know why

Originally Posted by Brutha

Why do you think that there are hard limits? Where should those come from?

Im simply looking at the human body and thinking what keeps us healthy is what in turn makes us healthy. Living the longest life possible would require good hygiene more than good drugs.
And there is such a thing called reality, which has pretty hard limits. We wont know for sure, until the pill or elixir has been discovered and proven to work if eternal, or human-life of 300 years for example is possible with it. Thats why im saying your welcome to pursue it. If you do, and claim your almost there, you will gain investor attention. If you at the same time will claim a monopoly on the drug/elexir, then you will get even more attention. I think -and thought this was what you were hinting at- if patents were to only exist in the pharma industry, ordinary citizens would be robbed of potential capital for their buisness ventures. Undoubtedly some would be willing to throw cash after a potential monopoly on the life extending, health restoring,cancer healing drug -some with enough to money spend will throw at least a little that way, more a gamble than related to anything rational.
You see there is a great incentive to lie if your in this industry. Even though you will never reach a real product, you may lie all you want, because things have come so far, so many end up with cancer that there is huge potential in this market.
BUT reality is... MAYBE, this is just a thought of mine... that in thinking medicine is the cure, not changing lifestyle, is what brings so much cancer about. It is so paradoxial. Maybe if there were no patents, less money would be invested in the medicine sector, it would be less hyped and the forces that drives society would turn toward ordinary lifestyle changes and healthy living instead.

Originally Posted by Brutha

If you rule would be universal it would also work for my example. That's what being universal is about.

Regardless what makes a rule universal? God?
Without one as reference point, rules always depend on context and on the specific person and what's good for one person in one context might not be good for another person in a different context.

Not my rule, but the rule as reality dictates it. What i had in mind when i said "What is good for one, must be good for all" was the fact that people of the state are allowed to use violence against me, but i am not allowed to use violence against them. Not even in self-defence.
Its a moral contradiction. What one is allowed to, everyone should be allowed to. So if i can be forced at gunpoint to surrender my property, then morally i should be able to do the same to anyone else. But there is no logical consistency in such a rule. If everyone was allowed to steal then private property wouldnt really exist. No-one would want to steal, for what they take would be allowed for anyone else to steal.

Originally Posted by Brutha

Here the question becomes whether the context of inventions makes state invention in the form from patents a positive sum game or a negative sum game.

Its definately negative


Im just going to change the following statement to make it resemble my take on things.

Originally Posted by Brutha

Either you can make the case that patents lead to more investment of capital and creative energy into a fraudulent field or you can make a case that the opposite is the case.
If you however blame patents for increasing pharma research you shouldn't argue at the same time that patents lead to less productive research because of monopoly concerns.

I am questioning the true positive effects of medicine in regard to the human body and good health/hygiene for optimal living conditions.
This means that most of not all research going into the pharma industry is potentially unproductive. Thats not to say there is not a profit to be made, but wether medicine really, truly helps the human body.

Originally Posted by Brutha

Companies usually sublicense each other patents to avoid legal trouble.

And so so many patents are obtained excusively to avoid or cause legal trouble. And obtaining patents take time and costs money.

[Lauxa]

Originally Posted by Double

My morals are based on reality. And thus they must be applied to everyone. If one thing is good for one, it must be good for all. One rule is No-one can force/tell others what to do. IF this was the case, that rule automatically eliminates the concept of free will.
For example, if i can tell you what to do, and you can tell others what to do, and these others tell me what to do, then the free-will does not exist, and no-one could tell anyone what to do to begin with. I mean, where does it start?

It starts with a "pecking order" and those at the top telling those at the bottom what to do. And a pecking order forms in every human group and many non-human groups as well. And sometimes force is used to enforce the pecking order. This does not negate free will because people choose their positions in the pecking order... although often not consciously.

I think the truth is, that that which keeps us healthy, is only what can make us healthy. Which explains why there has never been found a "cure" for cancer. There is no such thing, its merely a disease derived from an unhealthy lifestyle.

I read an interesting article the other day about how apparently naked mole rats never get cancers. They also live very long lives for their size (up to 28 years). Scientists have isolated a gene that reacts to cell crowding with much more sensitivity than the human version and is apparently responsible for preventing cancer. There are just so many potentially useful biological mechanisms that we don't understand yet. I think advances in genetic understanding are the best chance for increasing the human life span.

[Double]

Originally Posted by Lauxa

It starts with a "pecking order" and those at the top telling those at the bottom what to do. And a pecking order forms in every human group and many non-human groups as well. And sometimes force is used to enforce the pecking order. This does not negate free will because people choose their positions in the pecking order... although often not consciously..

In a universe where one should use force against another, there is no room for free-will. Individual freedom does not exist here.
In the society/universe where one shouldnt use force against others statism doesent make sense.

Originally Posted by Lauxa

I read an interesting article the other day about how apparently naked mole rats never get cancers. They also live very long lives for their size (up to 28 years). Scientists have isolated a gene that reacts to cell crowding with much more sensitivity than the human version and is apparently responsible for preventing cancer. There are just so many potentially useful biological mechanisms that we don't understand yet. I think advances in genetic understanding are the best chance for increasing the human life span.

What where these rats fed? What kind of habitat was provided for them?