1: I didn't know every patent applicant made it a point to knock on your front door and say "excuse me... I just wanted to let you know that I got a successful patent approval!"  Seriously, "what I perceive in X market" is a terribly subjective judgment.  It assumes you get a full and accurate representation of the patent industry... something easily questionable considering where you are in this debate. 

2: Even if you're correct that there are people who get screwed over in the patent system (I have no doubt there are instances of this), there have to be at least some people who do benefit from their inventions as a result of the patent system.  As long as at least one person benefits, there is an example to people that they can reach for that level of success and make a risk at creating an invention.  In other words, for you to be correct, you have to win that absolutely 100% of copyrights and patents are not owned by the people who actually create the works.  I can site at least 2 examples of patents and copyrights (one of each) I personally know of from friends and relatives who actually created the product, and own the rights to the product in question.  Your argument is invalid.

Remember, your advocacy has 0 way of capturing the advantage of an individual obtaining the full return on investment from an invention.  Your defense against this was "well, the current system doesn't do it either."  Therefore, as long as one example in the world exists of someone inventing a product and making money on it, the motivation to other people ("I'm going to make something and get rich like THAT GUY") exists... and therefore, inventions get created, even if at a loss.

> xeno syndicated wrote:

> Your assumption is that greed is the prime motivator for those who would invent something.  This is a flawed assumption.

Incorrect.

1: Refer to my giant prior post on page 1.  I actually very clearly explain how the patent system allows people who are not motivated by profit to maximize their individual utility from their inventions.  This was unanswered.

2: In the exact same way, your argument assumes that there are no inventors who are motivated by greed, which is equally flawed.  In reality, inventors are a mix of both science-driven and profit-driven inventors.  The profit-driven inventors just would not see the light of day in your scenario... meaning you lose out on a good amount of inventions.  The science-driven inventors, assuming cost of invention is not a factor, will still have a place in both worlds, so evaluating their motivations in this equation is really moot (except for when we do factor in cost of invention, which I explained in that previous post... in which patent law is once again favored).

Imagine a society where people create something simply for the joy of contributing to group; a society in which there is an innate dis-incentive to creating anything which might jeopardize the prosperity of the group; such could be our civilization.  As humans each of us is capable of being motivated towards action besides that of our own self-interest.  We are also capable of creating such a society if we only began to phase-out fiat currencies from our economic systems.

> xeno syndicated wrote:

> With all due respect, Zarf, forgive me for missing in your giant post where it was where you demonstrated that current patent system has provisions for inventors who are not motivated by greed.  If you would, would you refresh my memory?

Sure.  Here it is:

> Zarf BeebleBrix wrote:

> 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.

> Secondly, re:
My point does not assume that inventors wouldn't be motivated by greed under our current system.  To the contrary, my point is simply that a patent system without greed as a motivator would still be successful because many inventors would still invent regardless of monetary reward; and moreover, I'll go so far as to say that perhaps the inventions invented under such a patent system would be better, and more conducive to bettering society would better facilitate the kind of civilization in which the best interests of humanity are ensured, for such inventors would not produce inventions simply for selfish, ego-centric personal gain, but rather they would be motivated simply by the concept that their invention would better society somehow.  More to the point, then, would be, notion that removing the motivation of monetary gain from the patent system would result in only those inventions which were actually beneficial to society to be available to humanity, and thereby negating the ill-sociological-effects of those inventions which had been produced without any regard for the best interest of those individuals who would be using them nor the best interest of the civilization in which such inventions would be commonplace.

First of all, military-grade weapons are a completely different story here because they don't operate within the patent system.  Iran is not banned from constructing chemical weapons just because Germany built them first.  Whether patent laws exist or don't exist, it doesn't mean weapons wouldn't be created because weapons generally operate as trade secrets (the organization secures the information as to how the weapon is developed, so the agent only has a monopoly as long as they can secure the knowledge of the weapon's creation).  So WMDs are a terrible example of a "bad" invention that would be prevented.  Do you have an example of a legal, non-military grade, dangerous invention which would be prevented?

Second, how do you explain the computer virus?  No, I'm not talking about programs which try to steal personal information in order to take millions out of your credit cards.  I'm talking about the computer viruses that just destroy your computer, fry the hard drive, etc.  There's no personal gain from creating the invention.  The invention is purely destructive, created out of an individual's desire to cause destruction.  So don't frame the issue solely as if the only inventors would be peace-loving people.  In reality, there are people who just like to watch things burn.

That being said... the financially motivated people are the ones who tip the balance.  People with both good and ill intentions may be operating largely independently, constructing inventions with relatively few resources.  However, the people with financial intentions have the capacity to organize the people with good intentions for the purpose of effectively coordinating efforts against the bad intentions.  Take the computer virus.  A virus comes out one day.  There are plenty of antivirus programs available, some free and some charging a fee.  Which ones are generally the first to create the counteraction against the virus?  Yeah... it's Norton and McAffe.  And this is in an industry with a relatively low cost of producing goods... coding computer programs is much less resource-intensive than, for example, drug research.  However, resources still matter.

Third... even if your arguments are true, they only apply to the patent side of the equation.  What about the copyright side?  Are there "bad" works of art and ideas which you think we need to prevent from being produced?  If so, I'm going to preemptively call Godwin's Law on myself.  Copyright-produced works, such as books, movies, and web programs, still require resources to produce the works (especially movies).  What works do we generally prefer to watch?  Personally, all things being equal, I preferred Saving Private Ryan over an equivalent movie with a Youtube video budget.  If you don't like it... Youtube is still around.

Fourth, the fact that a person is profit-motivated doesn't mean their invention is bad.  Your interpretation would leave out many inventions which are profit-motivated, yet would not be harmful.

Fifth, as my argument at the top of this post states, high-cost inventions would still be left out, even by people motivated for the betterment of mankind.

Then there's Flint's arguments... I'll let him defend the general merits of capitalism...

I love Soup and Pippa Middleton

Hmm...

Seems to work for Facebook and Wikipedia.  Oh, speaking of which, check this out:

http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/English_Wikipedia_anti-SOPA_blackout

Woot~!  Good for Wikipedia.  Wish Facebook would do the same.

It has made most tech sites and new internet news hubs.

However opinion is Pipa will be pushed quietly through with Sopa as a distraction

internet piracy should be stopped with internet hackers

@zarf & xeno:
a few points important in this debate:
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.

"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.

> RisingDown wrote:

> does this proposed law affect foreign sites/people? if so, how?
does it allow american companies to shutdown foreign sites? even if this legislature collides with legislature in the country of origin?
does it allow foreign people/companies to shutdown american sites?

The law would not "shut down" foreign sites... however, it would allow the sites to be blocked within the US, so the site could be accessed everywhere else (by the way... perfect opportunity to raid American bankers by getting the US to block IC just before a war, then raiding their planets while they are unable to access their accounts... evil... but effective!)

Yes it works that easily.

Hate a company... post a large set of innocent looking links in a subject no one wants to read.

The next day complain that one of the links went to copyrighted material.

Website gets shutdown unless the webowner can go through all links ever posted and prove they do not goto copyrighted material....AS WELL AS verify all text is not copyrighted.

It does not matter if I gave permission, unless you provide next to my copyrighted stuff a picture of me giving permission...

It matters that someone percieves you have violated the law.

This is of course instant death for wikipedia, google, myspace, facebook, youtube, redstate, all major blogs, all major forums, google groups, and the list goes on.

In response to Little Paul... when did you become a socialist? Your denying most patent makers the ability to profit from their inventions if two years, all in the name of society?

Might as well /wrist to your conservative beliefs right now