Originally Posted by Kytro I don't think that coming up with an idea entitles you to any protection. Your idea is always going to be based on the work of others. If you don't want others to take your idea, then don't tell anyone about it. IP just restricts innovation ...
05-31-2007, 10:07 PM
| #21 | ||||
| ipsa Scientia Potestas est  Pragmatist Greensboro, NC 
| Originally Posted by Kytro Of course it's going to be based on the work of others, no one invents the wheel for the 2nd time, they use what's there.. but I believe at least as far as something like a medicine goes, there's a timelimit before a 'generic version' can be made and sold.. I think that's more than fair for pretty much every product.
There's a huge difference however, in coming up with a design, a drug, a feat of engineering, etc, and basing it off principles from the past.. (ie: Using chemistry and other such scientific tools) and copying someones design and selling it as your own.. I don't see how it restricts innovation, if anything I believe it encourages it.. While there are certainly people who live in academia and do research and so forth for the sake of knowledge and betterment of man, the vast majority of products, IMO, are made because people see a way to make money. If it was possible and legal for everyone to just sit around and wait to snipe someones new idea and maybe market it before they could, it would make people less willing to invest the enormous resources needed to create something new.. If I put 10 years of development into a new product that revolutionizes some industry, have taken out loans and all sorts of other stuff.. why should someone simply be able to take my idea and pass it off as their own? I don't see how it inflates the market value either. Are prices higher than they would be if everyone can copy it? Sure, but the value of something is based in part on how unique and rare it is.. if you or I could steal someones work and sell it as our own, I'd say it the value would be deflated needlessly. | ||||
     |
|
05-31-2007, 10:15 PM
| #22 | ||||
| I doubt it  Pragmatist
| Originally Posted by Kytro I suppose I could clarify commercial research, but I thought that was clear.
| ||||
| |
|
05-31-2007, 11:31 PM
| #23 | ||||
| Baka  Idealist Adelaide, Australia
| Originally Posted by motivez I just disagree. Just because you figure something first out shouldn't give you the right to artificially increase it's value. Certainly I support credit were credit is due, but not in any sense that would restrict the knowledge.
Originally Posted by motivez I am against taking credit for another's work, but not against copying it.
Originally Posted by motivez IP restricts innovation because you cannot build on others' knowledge without forking out hefty fees.
Originally Posted by motivez Which really isn't of interest to me. You could say it's not part of my vision of a successful future, and hence I don't support the concept. I do not object to a free market, but it shoudl be up to the market to protect IP, not the law.
Originally Posted by motivez The reality is that patents and copyright are used primarily to restrict usage the provide protection of a new idea.
Those companies that innovate and remain cutting edge will gain an advantage over others. It will drive the good companies to keep pressing forward to stay one step ahead. Originally Posted by motivez This is the only position I have any sympathy for, and probably the least common use for patents.
Originally Posted by motivez You just contradicted yourself. If you make something more rare that it really is by adjusting the supply, that is artificially increasing value. Just like if OPEC reduces oil production.
| ||||
| |
|
06-01-2007, 12:09 AM
| #24 | ||||
| ipsa Scientia Potestas est Pragmatist Greensboro, NC
| Originally Posted by Kytro I don't believe it's artificially increasing anything, I think when someone comes up with a new product, it's new, there's less of it, and the price is going to be higher because of it.
Having the knowledge out there of how something is put together (ie: open source operating systems) is different than allowing someone to take your work without your permission and sell it as their own. Originally Posted by Kytro Is there some study that says this, or is it just your stance? I'd love to see some kind of actual statistics on this issue, it's just as easy for me to say that it promotes innovation by allowing people to profit off their work without fear of having it stolen.
Originally Posted by Kytro They'll have to stay ahead and continue investing much more resources than anyone else who's simply able to steal their innovations and pass them off as their own.. how is that a 'fair' trade to the company that puts in the extra work, money on R&D, etc?
Originally Posted by Kytro Again, I don't think there's anything artificial about it. I think when someone comes up with a new idea that catches on it's automatically going to be more expensive (without any 'artificial adjustments') because it's new and rare.
I think if you tell that person that now that they've invented something, everyone else can go ahead and steal their design for it and begin selling it as their own, it actually artificially deflates the price because there's more of whatever it happens to be. | ||||
| |
|
06-01-2007, 01:05 AM
| #25 | ||||
| Baka Idealist Adelaide, Australia
| Originally Posted by motivez Yes, this is true, but at soon as you restrict copying the limit becomes artificial.
Originally Posted by motivez Considering that IP is a reasonably modern concept, it is difficult to quantify. My stance is that IP is used primarily by people to restrict usage and that will in turn restrict innovation. You claim that innovation would discouraged, and some of it probably will, but currently is is restricted despite encouragement.
Originally Posted by motivez I don't really care about fair trade, that is a personal issue.
Originally Posted by motivez Keeping it that way however is an inflation. Artificial monopolies mean artificial supply, and hence price.
Originally Posted by motivez I have no problems with having to credit the inventor. I dispute the concept that an inventor has a natural right to restrict an idea. Controls are an artificial restriction, the lack of controls is not an artificial state.
Flooding the market reduces the value of something, I am not saying that is false - but to claim that copying an idea (or building upon it) is somehow not natural for humans, well that is how we learn. | ||||
| |
|
06-01-2007, 09:06 PM
| #26 | ||||
| your god  libertarian Salt Lake City, UT 
| Originally Posted by Diesel66 Really, it is irrelevant what the "economists" think about this subject. Either IP exists or it does not.
If IP does not exist, then it is a government granted monopoly, and every "economist" will tell you that government granted monopolies are inefficient. If IP does exist, then, just like real property, it should never expire. Once it is determined the IP is yours, it should be yours until you sell it or pass it on to your children. Otherwise, you could argue that your home should only be yours for twenty years and then pass into the public realm just as easily as arguing IP should pass into the public realm. However, the argument that IP actually exists, is ridiculous. You cannot feel, smell, see, hear, or taste IP. You cannot steal IP. You can only copy IP. If I come up with a better way of making a good, and then you "steal" my idea and make the exact same thing, do I all of a sudden lose all my ideas and become a brainless lifeform? No. To suggest innovation would not take place without IP laws, is ridiculous. All economists know government granted monopolies are not as efficient as the free market. For example, 70% of drug research is spent on how to make copycat drugs, not new ones. To suggest inventors would not get "rewarded" as well, is ludicrous. They would still get rewarded, they just would not get over-compensated anymore. | ||||
| |
|
06-02-2007, 12:55 AM
| #27 | ||||
| Junkie  Conservative Party
| Originally Posted by Spideynw Funny how you know the truth and everyone else doesnt. Its pretty much 100% agreed upon that without the protections of patents and copyrights, there would be much less inventions.
Especially in the world of medicine. Why spend billions on R&D when as soon as your drug passes the test, there will be an exact copy of the drug AND the packaging sitting right next to your product priced cheaper. | ||||
| |
|
06-02-2007, 01:11 AM
| #28 | ||||
| Baka Idealist Adelaide, Australia
| Originally Posted by Diesel66 Yet this is mere speculation.
Originally Posted by Diesel66 Demand.
| ||||
| |
|
06-02-2007, 01:15 AM
| #29 | ||||
| Pinko Commie Bastard  Communist Moscow
| Originally Posted by Kytro
__________________ Perhaps the sentiments contained in the preceding post, are not yet sufficiently favorable to procure them general favor; a long habit of not thinking a thing wrong, gives it a superficial appearance of being right, and raises at first a formidable outcry in defence of custom. But the tumult soon subsides. Time makes more converts than reason. - slightly modified from Common Sense, Thomas Paine, 1776 I am Ron Paul, Congressman from Texas... I am the champion of the Constitution.  | ||||
| |
|
06-02-2007, 01:23 AM
| #30 | ||||
| Baka Idealist Adelaide, Australia
| Medical research should be government funded anyway, at least in my opinion. | ||||
| |
|
06-02-2007, 02:38 AM
| #31 | ||||
| your god libertarian Salt Lake City, UT
| Originally Posted by Diesel66 You want to talk about drugs? Of course they cost a lot of money to research, most likely from government intervention. Copyrights and public education drive up the cost of education. for researchers. FDA drives up the price of drugs. Civil court punitive damages drive up the cost of research. The key words to remember are "free market".
| ||||
| |
|
06-03-2007, 12:25 AM
| #32 | ||||
| Junkie Conservative Party
| Originally Posted by Spideynw Only lunatics suggest a 100% free market.
If a company harms someone, they deserve to be sued. Originally Posted by Kytro
| ||||
| |
|
06-03-2007, 12:37 AM
| #33 | ||||
| your god libertarian Salt Lake City, UT
| Originally Posted by Diesel66 Yup, for compensatory damages, but not for punitive damages.
Last edited by Spideynw; 06-03-2007 at 09:50 PM. | ||||
| |
|
06-03-2007, 03:17 AM
| #34 | ||||
| I doubt it Pragmatist
| Originally Posted by Kytro It's funny how you say that like it's an answer to the issue of IP.
| ||||
| |
|
06-03-2007, 07:50 PM
| #35 | ||||
| Baka Idealist Adelaide, Australia
| Originally Posted by Diesel66 Yeas, I I take it from you, then it is, and copyright infringement is a crime, but it is not stealing.
| ||||
| |
|
06-03-2007, 07:51 PM
| #36 | ||||
| Baka Idealist Adelaide, Australia
| Originally Posted by redwards Not really, but it would level the playing field. I am opposed to the concept of owning ideas. Business would adapt.
| ||||
| |
|
06-03-2007, 07:52 PM
| #37 | ||||
| tyop speicalist Religion Moderator  Capitalist California
| Originally Posted by Diesel66 civil law vs. criminal law
__________________ $$_/^_^\__*<}{~))}}""?  ????   ? //\\  **!!]" | ||||
| |
|
06-03-2007, 09:51 PM
| #38 | ||||
| your god libertarian Salt Lake City, UT
| Originally Posted by Diesel66 So, I would assume you would think there should be no limit on ownership length for IP then?
| ||||
