>So brilliant man.... where is the money going?

You said it.  You've got a system which takes a CD which costs a dime to produce and then spends $19.99 to get it into the hands of the customer.  And you want to continue supporting such idiocy?  It should DISQUALIFY you from running for any representative position in politics, the justice system, any public service whatsoever (or anyone else running for that matter) for the simple reason that your way of thinking is antithetical to the best interest of the human race.

> Zarf BeebleBrix wrote:

> So how does the business get to recoup its losses from actually producing the drug or making the song in the first place, xeno?  Remember, whoever gets that patent or copyright on the  product had to spend the money to actually invent/create the product in the first place... so the inventor starts off at an economic loss.  Meanwhile, the profitable businesses would be the ones that can just sit back, wait for someone else to invent the product they want to sell, and reverse engineer and reproduce the item for relatively cheap costs... so the ones who actually invent the products actually become the losers.

Do you believe the current patent system disadvantages the inventor/creator and encourages the usurping of product concepts?

> MedicineMan wrote:

> > Zarf BeebleBrix wrote:

> So how does the business get to recoup its losses from actually producing the drug or making the song in the first place, xeno?  Remember, whoever gets that patent or copyright on the  product had to spend the money to actually invent/create the product in the first place... so the inventor starts off at an economic loss.  Meanwhile, the profitable businesses would be the ones that can just sit back, wait for someone else to invent the product they want to sell, and reverse engineer and reproduce the item for relatively cheap costs... so the ones who actually invent the products actually become the losers.

Do you believe the current patent system disadvantages the inventor/creator and encourages the usurping of product concepts?

With regards to the specific patent structure, I just don't have detailed enough knowledge of the patent system to accurately give an opinion on that, especially in light of recent legislative patent reform laws.  My only argument is that some sort of protection needs to exist, as opposed to a system with no patent laws whatsoever.  Now, if you have a suggested alternative to the modern patent/copyright structure in place, I'm all ears... I just don't think a system that disregards the complete cost of production, including invention, is a viable system.

Xeno you missed that while production may be so cheap... other aspects have cost as well.

Do you honestly think they make profits equal to 20,000% of the products cost?

Do you think there is no other cost than production?

Are you truly that stupid? Or is your emotion getting in the way of logic?

> Zarf BeebleBrix wrote:

> So how does the business get to recoup its losses from actually producing the drug or making the song in the first place, xeno?  Remember, whoever gets that patent or copyright on the  product had to spend the money to actually invent/create the product in the first place... so the inventor starts off at an economic loss.  Meanwhile, the profitable businesses would be the ones that can just sit back, wait for someone else to invent the product they want to sell, and reverse engineer and reproduce the item for relatively cheap costs... so the ones who actually invent the products actually become the losers.

Lol.  Do you think the current system protects inventors at all?  The richest man in the world didn't come up with the idea for a DOS.  Neither did the facebook kid.   Like always, it was somebody else who came up with the idea.  The patent holders simply used the system to rip-off the real innovators.  This has been going on for centuries, ever since there were patents.  Tesla, for example.

Inventors, real innovators invent not for the money, but to solve the world's problems.  They would still invent even if it was not profitable.  The people who seek profit will collude and connive to manipulate the law, society, and the innovators to thwart innovation rather than spurn it.  They will buy patents and impose regulations and draft laws to prevent the replacement of technologies they currently have control over / currently profiting in their virtual monopoly of that technology's industry. 

Want to spurn innovation to the max?  Abolish intellectual property law entirely and we'd be free to use the new-found free flow of knowledge to solve the world's problems instead of causing more of them.  Instead of being driven by sheer profit, people would invent things because they would want to, simply for the benefit of humankind.

Here we are on the brink of war with Iran, North Korea, and with the EU on the brink of economic collapse, threatening to bring the global economy down with it, and they want to prevent the free flow of knowledge and ideas - the currency of innovation - which might bring us back from the brink.  Absurd.  SOPA is absurd.

We're on the cusping edge of a new global renaissance or global catastrophe and SOPA / PIPA threatens to tip the balance towards catastrophe.  One of the only things going for us as a civilization is the advent of the internet and the free flow of information and knowledge. 

Where do you think we would be today if the person who first invented fire went down to his local patent office and thus prevented just anyone from.  No, he'd only allow his tribe members to use fire, and only after making him King and paying him a fee for using it.  Where would we be today if every time some unauthorized person who used fire were hunted down and imprisoned or killed by the tribe?  We'd still be in the stone age, that's where.

>Xeno you missed that while production may be so cheap... other aspects have cost as well.

I didn't miss it.  Not once was I taking anything into account other than the actual cost of production of the CD.  If you went to the CD factory and bought a blank CD direct and the factory owner decided to sell it at cost.  It would cost you maybe 10 cents.  The difference between a blank CD and one with music on it is worth $19.90 more how?

I sit here sick as a dog so more time to post.

There are artists who sell only via online. They do not do as well due to lack of a good advertising plan, networking, etc.

XENO:
In ancient China they abolished Patents and other protections of works.

Prior to this they were the most advanced society on Earth. They had huge iron refineries capable of producing large objects (some of which survive today) of single peice manufacture. No welds, no merging of metals... single peice dies.

They had a sophisticated construction culture as well as brilliant books (see Sun Tzu for example).

They were two hundred years more advanced than Europe. They sailed a huge fleet to Africa to deal with a traitor.

The decline in their society is very notable, and very obvious.

Throwing away patents is the worst idea to EVER come out of your mouth.

Btw Facebook was done by Mark. And Apple was done by you know who. Edison really did form a large corporation based on mostly his inventions, and the Constitution was really written by that Convention of Americans.

Check the Dynasties, not the more modern ages.

> xeno syndicated wrote:

> Instead of making me check, why don't you - oh I don't know - perhaps refer me to a source?

Einstien, using sourcable information, HA!

"Check the Dynasties, not the more modern ages."

From my understanding of Chinese history, that no patent laws ever existed...if you also used common knowledge and sense, you would think that any inventions/innovation would belong to the state (at that time, the dynasties). I would refer to Confucious' teachings of heirarchy, which places women under men, daughters under son's, etc, but most importantly that everyone has responsibility to the state.

Don't know if this helps...

I am not sure anymore where to find the information

Chris was the one who linked it in the past.

Essentially some ancient emporer chose to end the rights of musicians (first them) so that the music could be played by anyone.

I tried searching... honestly the history lesson exists... just trying to find it is a pain

> xeno syndicated wrote:

> > Zarf BeebleBrix wrote:

> So how does the business get to recoup its losses from actually producing the drug or making the song in the first place, xeno?  Remember, whoever gets that patent or copyright on the  product had to spend the money to actually invent/create the product in the first place... so the inventor starts off at an economic loss.  Meanwhile, the profitable businesses would be the ones that can just sit back, wait for someone else to invent the product they want to sell, and reverse engineer and reproduce the item for relatively cheap costs... so the ones who actually invent the products actually become the losers.

> Lol.  Do you think the current system protects inventors at all?  The richest man in the world didn't come up with the idea for a DOS.  Neither did the facebook kid.   Like always, it was somebody else who came up with the idea.  The patent holders simply used the system to rip-off the real innovators.  This has been going on for centuries, ever since there were patents.  Tesla, for example.

Care to give specifics?  For starters, under what circumstances would a patent holder differ from the inventor of the item in question?

> Inventors, real innovators invent not for the money, but to solve the world's problems.  They would still invent even if it was not profitable.  The people who seek profit will collude and connive to manipulate the law, society, and the innovators to thwart innovation rather than spurn it.  They will buy patents and impose regulations and draft laws to prevent the replacement of technologies they currently have control over / currently profiting in their virtual monopoly of that technology's industry. 

Actually, you have this... EXTREMELY backwards.

1: That's one hell of an ethic.  Under your world, the good inventor is supposed to take a $50 million loss in order to invent a product for which they will recover absolutely nothing... the people who have money, then, can use the unprotected invention to create products... generating a profit!

2: Actually, if your ethic is that we should support the "solve world problems" inventors, you should be totally in favor of patent rules.  Let's say, for example, that I have an idea for a drug, which will cost me exactly $50 million in initial investment, plus my own work-hours, to invent.  Remember, we're talking here about the inventor who invents to solve world problems... so let's assume the personal utility of money to this person=0, except for what is needed to actually create the drug.

Anyway, under the no-patent system, the inventor must first raise $50 million in order to work on the drug.  So that requires a good amount of time in money saved, investments, etc., in order to raise the money.  Then he'll make the invention... spending his $50 million.  The result: a drug was invented, and the inventor has paid the time and effort it took to produce the money to make the invention.  The invention was probably delayed by years before actually being created, due to the time required to produce the initial investment for the final product.  He got a good feeling from helping the world.  However, that good feeling was delayed by the total time required to obtain the financial resources to produce the final good.  Thus, he lost out on the motivation he was attempting to gain, because the satisfaction was delayed by the ability to create the product.

What about under the patent system?  Under this system, the inventor doesn't even need to raise the $50 million.  Alternatively, the inventor can collude with a business (generally by being employed in their research department).  The business will raise the $50 million from its other departments, and obtains the patent.  The inventor receives a paycheck for their work.  More importantly, though, the inventor didn't need to invest the time and effort required to obtain the $50 million to create the invention... because the business already had the $50 million.  The inventor does sacrifice the patent, yes, but we're talking about a "good inventor" under your interpretation, who shouldn't care about money... so this is a nonexistent sacrifice.  This inventor gains his satisfaction from helping the world earlier... and sacrifices something he doesn't give a crap about.

3: Does that mean we're supposed to stop innovation because people want to be rewarded?  "Oh, I'm sorry... I don't want your cure for cancer because you want money."  Newsflash... people get rewarded with money for their societal contributions.  It's called capitalism.  Do we expect people to grow crops for their local town just because they like seeing crops grow?  Do we expect people to go sell stuff at Wal-Mart just because they like the sound of cash registers?

Why is this specific type of person supposed to work solely for charity, when other industries are allowed to work for profit?

That brings one other point.  That little demonstration I described above has one other benefit: it shows that the patent system is adaptable.  If I am motivated by money in order to produce an invention... I can take the effort required to produce an invention, and obtain the profit for it.  If, however, I just like to make the world a better place... I can work with a business, which will get the invention created... and give me the happy feeling!  I have choices.  Under your system, however, there is no place for the money-motivated inventor.  Thus, you lose out on the benefits which would have been obtained as a result of the money-motivated inventor's invention.

> Where do you think we would be today if the person who first invented fire went down to his local patent office and thus prevented just anyone from.  No, he'd only allow his tribe members to use fire, and only after making him King and paying him a fee for using it.  Where would we be today if every time some unauthorized person who used fire were hunted down and imprisoned or killed by the tribe?  We'd still be in the stone age, that's where.

Um... that's how world history worked.  Do you think the Romans open-sourced their Legionnaire armor?  Did Hannibal offer the world war elephants in order to best promote effective use of the war elephant?  No.  If an invention was important enough to where the tribe thought it was worth protecting... yes, the tribe would protect it.  Do you really think tribal societies were handing off any innovation to every other tribe in the region?  Remember that whole survival of the fittest, natural selection thing?

Hell, during the early colonization of the Americas, the Spanish actually made it an offense punishable by death for a person to give a tobacco seed to a foreign government (because Spain's control over South America meant they had a total monopoly on the tobacco market, because they were the first to produce the good).

Not to mention, though, that patents only exist for a relatively short period of history.  Even if a patent structure like what exists today were implemented for fire... the worst case scenario is that human technological evolution would have been shortened 20 years.