@ Wormstrum

Johannes Gutenberg would have been in violation of PIPA / SOPA and would have gone to prison, and his printing press invention shut down.

Especially since there was no internetz. 

If you can convince me to share my cure under your dream I will send you $1,000

I think he should have said: "the pipa/sopa version of 1455". I see the point he's trying to make. But I leave that up to him and try to finish my reply instead.

It is only for Xeno, and no your answer would not have won anyhow

> Einstein wrote:

> It is only for Xeno, and no your answer would not have won anyhow

Ok, so you are either suggesting that SOPA/PIPA are infact great for protecting intellectual property and inspire those to bring forward their ideas/inventions (but judging by your other posts, yeah right ), or you are rejecting my interpretation of the "ideal world" analogy, which I would clearly point you back to the original post and point out that you have brought an argument in a thread that is dedicated to stopping SOPA/PIPA...

If I did not "win", then you are infact showing support for SOPA/PIPA, or otherwise showing double standards towards it (ie. I do not like SOPA/PIPA, but I would not release my ideas without it).

Furthermore, if your point is to make money (and for a drug, this would happen anyway even if there was no protection anyway), then you would still be selling it to a pharmacutical company...once you sell your idea for a drug, you no longer care about the sales of the drug (also, without patents, couldn't you then sell the idea to EVERY pharmacutical company?), and you would be rolling around in your profits (would happen in a world with or without patents). The only time you would be seeking protection, is if you owned the pharmacutical company or are looking to start such a company. The ONLY difference would be, you might not make as much money (but you would still be making money)...a new drug might not have been the best choice to have this discussion (since in any case a drug idea needs to be sold to a pharmacutical company)...

> Einstein wrote:

> He has to convince me to give up my chance for fame and glory and a hell of a lot of money.

What about doing it because it would give your political campaign one of the biggest boosts in history?  Also maybe because you're a nice guy and you'd be doing it for the greater good of humanity?

...All of a sudden I get a sense of utter futility in appealing to your humane side

@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.

Also, there is 3 scenarios that COULD happen:

1-  Make no money, incurring the full cost of development
2-  Recover some of the money invested in development
3-  Recover all of the invested money, and make some profit

Your 2 choices:

1-  Release
2-  Do not release

Lets look at what happens:

RELEASE:

2-  Recover some of the money invested in development
3-  Recover all of the invested money, and make some profit

DO NOT RELEASE:

1-  Make no money, incurring the full cost of development

As you said, it is all about the money, at which point the only way to make any money is to release it. You have already invested the money to develop the cure, so it involves no more investment by you, and you can at least recover some costs. I agree that it would not encourage people to invest, but in your situation you would either be simply holding on to an ideal (and trying to make a political statement) or you would care ONLY about the money at which point you wouldn't be left with any real option but to release the cure...I am sorry, but your only options are to say "I am making a political stance", "Ok, you have convinced me" or "I do not want to admit defeat". Point 1 makes this argument moot (since even making money would still make you chose this so your question is moot), and Point 2 and 3 mean that I have convinced you.

"No more advances in anything as no one would care to try"

This is what is currently happening.  The only people innovating anything or making any advances are tools hired at peanut salaries by corporations who own the patents of ideas that their employees come up with.

Any independent inventors out there, be they in the field of information technology, the movie industry, pharmaceuticals, etc., don't bother trying to invent anything anymore because 1. they don't have the money, and 2. can't get the loans, and 3. they know that even if they were invest in their projects themselves, corporations will either, firstly, steal their patents using legal maneuverings so as to change the initial design just sufficiently enough to make it significantly different from the on under the inventor's patent (easy to do with a legal system corrupted by corporatism), or, secondly, buy out another inventor working on a similar competing patented technology and bring that one to market before the inventor can.

Look at history and see how many inventors were burned by the corporations, investors, other inventors working with them.  Creative minds of our age in the current climate know better than to bother trying to innovate anything, not only because they certainly won't get what's fair for their efforts, but also because their contributions will probably be used for ill-begotten purposes.

Let the corporate tools do it then for their peanut rewards.  Our geniuses know its better for them to not bother even trying to contribute.

> Einstein wrote:

> "No you have a false presumption.

You assume that such a law would be permament.

I would of course memorize the method, or bury an encrypted cd (10 years til decay of the data starts) with only enough to remind me...

And I would wait."

That right there, is a gamble. If you were capable of making money off the idea without a patent (since you can sell it to every company), you would try and wait it out to see if you can get a better deal. I do not think an idea of a system without patents would quickly die, because there would be fewer people persuing inventions, and thus less political pressure to change. People are greedy, they will invest their time and effort into something that actually makes money, and not lobbying for patents.

"Such a stupid plan would reap the negative side fast. No more advances in anything as no one would care to try."

People would still try, and this I think is your false presumption. It would make less money, but companies would still be investing in creating things that give them a competative edge (especially since they are competing against other competitors). For example, why not invest in a new form of automation that makes producing a drug cheaper and allows you to sell it cheaper. Because it is internal, your competitors would not know about this invention, so you would recoup your losses very quickly. I think all inventions would be forced into corporations (which is what Xeno is trying to move away from).

"Your premisde fails due to the fact as a smart person I see the flaws and will wait it out."

So you are smarter than the rest of us? How very nice. I see the flaws, but you are following this in a 1 track mind (ie. This is bad, so I will not do it). Destroying a cure because you can't make as much money (and yes, I still think you would make money, because even the individual would want access to it. Also, as I keep stating, pharmaceutical companies also want access to this and would still pay. A drug really is a bad example of this, because no matter what, you still have to sell it to a drug company).

I would also like to point out, that you complained in an earlier thread that you were against the monopoly of the pharmaceutical companies forcing long courses of medicines down our throats to protect their income. Well a cure for cancer would actually change that, since once it is cured, there is no need to sell other drugs to slow down the progress. They would possibly stand to lose money (except for those who invest early on the cure). You would be dealing a blow to something you disagree with (and this should also be a deciding factor, especially since you say you will destroy the cure [and you said that me wanting population growth curbed was evil]).

You are thinking worst case scenario, same as Xeno is thinking on the other extreme...there is a happy balance in the middle...

You have failed to even counter what I said, but just say that it is your right to...You are blind to other alternatives, and your entire premise of not releasing the drug is that you SHOULD be able to extort as much money from it as you can. As I said, releasing the drug does not negatively affect you (you recoup losses and potentially make money), yet you wouldn't release it and would destroy it instead (yes sir, that is certainly worse than my idea of restricting population growth, in the sense that you would allow people to suffer and die just so you can make more money).

You would be worse off, and actually do nothing to help CHANGE the system back by with-holding the cure. You also go against some of your other principles by with-holding it also. You are now trying to make your defence about principles, but you go against other principles. With-holding the cure would only help make pharmaceutical companies richer (by selling drugs that prolong life, by taking large amounts) when you could be killing off their money making. In fact, under a system WITH patents, a company would buy the patent, and then do nothing with it simply to protect their existing markets (although I thought there was actually laws against this...would need to check). Do you now defend pharmaceutical companies that, for example, sell medication that treats HIV? (since this was one you complained about?)

"Though only xeno can earn the money..."

This was not your original post, but I wouldn't actually take your money (would never give you my bank details). Never fear admitting defeat, because I would not actually hold you to the money.

Ok, I found this in an ethics paper on withholding treatments:

2.3 Justice and intentional killing
To kill a human being is to bring about his or her death. One may do this either by something one does (e.g. by shooting him) or by something one fails to do (e.g. by failing to give an incompetent diabetic the insulin he needs).

2.3.6 Withdrawing or withholding treatment and intentional killing
From all the foregoing two things should be clear: first that one can aim to bring about someone's death precisely by deliberate omission of some form of treatment or care; i.e. one can intentionally kill a patient in this way. Secondly, that to do so is, morally speaking, as gravely wrong as intentionally killing them by giving them a lethal dose of poison or a fatal wound.

(http://www.linacre.org/wwt.html)

Now, as I keep pointing out, you already had the cure, so you have already invested the money. It does not further hurt you to release the cure (you would still make SOME money, and by being able to release it to every company, you would still be able to make some substantial profits). You are coming back to a principle of greed, that stands AGAINST your other principles (murder [which I think you had a go at me over on the topic of limiting population growth] and the greed of pharmaceutical companies). This would then seem to indicate that your own personal greed would outweigh your other principles, yes?