@Einstein:
"hank you Zarf for supporting... all these socialists made me lonely.."
you called me a socialist. So yes, you must be a lonely guy

@tommie:
"reform the copyright and patent laws to fit this day and age.
keeping them like they are is innefective, abolishing them altogether is even worse..."
This is more or less the same as my own views. Except I would rather abolish them as keep them as they are, but both are bad options. The main point of debate is how much time a patent should last.

@zarf:
finished my reply-reply-reply. Should be somewhere up. Take your time.

@zarf, I did the best I could to make it clear but still looks a bit like a mess. Here it goes.
This is my post:
1.) Creator rights vs patents
Making a law to protect creators rights is something different as making a law giving artificial ownership.
2.) Duration:
The duration of the patent is as important as the law itself. If you give the creator eg 1 or 2 years of ownership, you benefit both the money input as well as the advantage of everybody using it.
3.) Ownership rights themselves:
If you invent something, you shouldn't be able to prevent people using it. There is also the question of how much someone should earn then in return. A (low) percentage would be logical thing to do.
4.) Competition between distributors
If you only create rights for the creator, there will be no state intervention artificially giving money to the holder of a monopoly at the distributors side. Competition will start a price war. (this one is already adressed by xeno.)

Let me give a few examples:
1. Right now -don't laugh- a mouseclick is patented! This is insane as the person or group holding the rights is not the creator but the first one to patent it.
2. Duration: if you make eg computerhardware patentable over max 2 years, companies will still benefit but others might use the knowledge to make other, better hardware if they invent it. competition is the key
3. Some people making music don't earn squad despite their music being sold well one CD. If you make a law providing them with 2% of the actual consumer price they will make far more as they do today.

About the price of a cd, its not even 0.01 cents for one cd, and its weight is almost zero. That only leaves administration, distribution and the artist work (including making the cd cover etc etc) Distributors make most profit and this is an undeniable fact if you look up their business stats! No denial possible.

Cut long story short: State intervention on behalve of the distributors lobby is another way rich elite found to shortcut free market competition. The consumers pay the price!

Internet piracy is a logical answer of a free market system to a corrupt gov. system. No stupid monopolies, less internet piracy. I do not agree with it, but they are the real creators of their own problems.

***********
This is your reply zarf:
1. Care to define what this means?  What "creator rights," and what would this entail?
2. Oh, I have no argument with the idea that an arbitrary 20-year patent is good for all inventions.  That being said, you have to take into consideration the specific inventions before considering the patent.
Probably the most important aspect would be the good's market elasticity.  If we're talking about, for example, a cure for cancer, people must buy the product no matter what the price... so the original producer is able to require a higher surcharge to compensate for prior research.  Thus, it's more likely this would be on the lower end of the patent structure.

But this obviously creates a problem.  If, for example, a .01 pill was being sold at $200 per pill under a 20 year patent, reducing the patent length to 2 years would require an arbitrarily high (maybe $2000 or more) price for the pill... and because the good is inelastic, people have little choice but to accept.

However, if we're talking about a post-it note, something people really don't "need," the surcharge an individual would be able to place on the item during the patent period would be lower, because more people will avoid the product in response to higher prices... thus, it's likely this would require the longer of terms for patent lengths.

Now, this would obviously have the problem that individuals would have to either classify each type of good's elasticity or create broad categories based on market elasticity.  But, in terms of economic efficiency, yeah, I do recognize reforms could take place changing the term of the patent.

Also recognize, though, that patent lengths aren't created at the national level.  The terms are constructed as an international standard for the sake of establishing continuity in international trade.  So if there is a reform, it's much more difficult even than Schoolhouse Rock suggests.  smile

3.)Why?

4.)Except that the competition already puts the inventor at a disadvantage.  If rights are not given to the creator, how is the creator supposed to recoup the losses from the initial research?  If your thesis is that some rights (such as the 2-year patent) should be given... that's state intervention, no matter how small.  Where's the compromise going to happen?
*************
My reply again:
1. Dependent on country and subjects, people or organizations can take patents or intellectual ownership of things they did not create, invent or invest in. I can compose song (yes I know I can't icon39), write it down, perform it, and write it on a cd. You in turn can take intellectual ownership in a lot of countries (like Michael Jackson did with the beatles.)

2."That being said, you have to take into consideration the specific inventions before considering the patent. Probably the most important aspect would be the good's market elasticity.  If we're talking about, for example, a cure for cancer, people must buy the product no matter what the price... so the original producer is able to require a higher surcharge to compensate for prior research.  Thus, it's more likely this would be on the lower end of the patent structure."
agreed.

"But this obviously creates a problem.  If, for example, a .01 pill was being sold at $200 per pill under a 20 year patent, reducing the patent length to 2 years would require an arbitrarily high (maybe $2000 or more) price for the pill... and because the good is inelastic, people have little choice but to accept."
I disagree here unless you're talking 100% hypothetically. Lets take this example as opposed to the real world you still have to consider at least three important points:
1. unfortunately, even a human's life has a price.
2. no medicine is guaranteed to succeed for a certain disease, not even antibiotics.
3. human's subjectivity towards the medicine's effect.
4. in some countries gov subsidizes some medicines.

So in your example we have three scenarios:
2 years patent:
The price is as high as their public can pay. If 10 people can afford a $20 pill or 30 people can afford a $10 pill, they choose the latter. Most probably they would do a mix with a more expensive better working edition etc etc but you got the point. They will not make it $30 if no-one can afford it. They won't sell anything.

20 years patent:
Same story. Only difference is if those people who live thanks to the medicine might invest in something else the same company has to offer. They'll add that to the equation.

No patent:
-The medicine is possibly not invented- otherwise:
Free market will cut short the prices.(if the knowledge how to make it is spread that is)

I presume in real life, companies won't go as far as the people might riot if they cannot afford to live.

The most important question is, how long does it take a company to regain the initial cost of the invention? This poses a problem in our discussion as this is a very difficult equation and almost impossible to calculate.

"However, if we're talking about a post-it note, something people really don't "need," the surcharge an individual would be able to place on the item during the patent period would be lower, because more people will avoid the product in response to higher prices... thus, it's likely this would require the longer of terms for patent lengths."
That will prevent a lot of people using it. Companies and individuals are proly a bit less productive. This product might be produced less effective as there is no competition. No-one can improve the invention but that company.

"Now, this would obviously have the problem that individuals would have to either classify each type of good's elasticity or create broad categories based on market elasticity.  But, in terms of economic efficiency, yeah, I do recognize reforms could take place changing the term of the patent."
I think we agree there.

"Also recognize, though, that patent lengths aren't created at the national level.  The terms are constructed as an international standard for the sake of establishing continuity in international trade.  So if there is a reform, it's much more difficult even than Schoolhouse Rock suggests."
I admit have no answer to this problem. I do believe that its good to have the same agreements internationally.

In general I agree with most of your ideas and views you replied to point 2 of my initial post, like the variation in duration and what it should be based upon, but we have different opinions on the maximum duration I think.

3. If its a good invention, chances are bigger it will be massed produced or be sold for a lot of money
4. I think there is a misunderstanding here at point 4. With creator or inventor I ment the same thing. Its just my bad English. So for now I will only reply to this:
"If your thesis is that some rights (such as the 2-year patent) should be given... that's state intervention, no matter how small.  Where's the compromise going to happen?"
In general you could say there is to much (bad) state intervention, but I do not advocate 0% state intervention just for the sake of it. The compromise should happen at whats pragmaticly the best thing to do. We agree on that.

lol

@zarf:
To bad the other thread got closed before I had the chance to create a full answer, tough I see why. Maybe I should reassemble my answer and repost it if you still care Zarf? I have little time tough so it might take me 2-3 days to fully reply.

"In any event I formally endorse Newt. I have severe issues with some of his stances, but like Princess Leia said "Help us Newtobi Wan Kenobi, your our only hope."
lol. I agree newt is a better candidate as Mit still, who would proly be as bad as Obama. That being said, I don't feel like he would make a real good president the US so needs at this moment.

Take a beer Einstein, and stay off drugs

@you fool:
I don't want to engage as I lack the time and don't want to destroy the debate by not responding or bad posts.

"Excuse me... if patent length was only two years most producers would wait for it to run out than produce then.
And you should know it!"
I do, its not a problem as it makes the prices drop.

"Theft is not a necessity of life in this case. Protest by buying from responsible people only."
Its only theft when its made illegal. Its not a necessity of life, but it sure as hell brings down prices. I do not fully agree with it, but the only other option is plain robbery.

+1 einstein

lol east

"We just need to kill off the welfare dependent, save a ton that way!  Just put welfare recipients into a big giant oven."
you really achieve welfare by "saving" companies? Those companies would have been sold and rich people would have had no other choice but to stop their game. Obama spends most of his money on a small elite, not the poor!

"Looking at the data it seems to me that the only period in the last 30 years that didnt have frequest raising of the debt ceiling was the Clinton era"
The biggest increase is made in the Obama era by far. Its not the frequency that matters but the total increase that matters.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:USDebt.png