Jettison all intellectual property laws

There were literally over 1000 auto makers in the 1950's and the top three, the companies that got most of if not all the government favor, contracts, regulation exemptions, loopholes, grants etc... were the only one's who survived adequately, by the mid 1960's.
　
Don't think for a moment that govt intervention doesn't have it's benefits for the private sector.

 

True enough. Now, my not knowing your political bent, could you agree that the idiotic contracts state and federal governments have signed with public employee unions in the area of retirement pensions and benefits aren't as outrageous? C'mon now...be real.

 

I think you can make a moral distinction on patent rights between whether something is considered "art" or something is for the true benefit of mankind as a whole. Right now, pharmaceuticals and patented seeds are manufactured at a deficit to demand intentionally so that demand stays high and profits stay high. That means that people are intentionally denied the rights to life saving medicine and life saving food sources (seeds that can grow in harsh climates for example, or that are resistant to indigenous bugs or pollutants) for the sole purpose of MAXIMIZING (not ensuring a bare minimum profit, but maximizing) profits for the patent company holders.

Of course, now, its companies that hold those patents, not the actual engineers and inventors that created them. Steve Jobs got all the credit, and controlled all the money for every proprietary invention his engineers came up with, despite it being their genius and actions (sure, under his supervision) that created the products making all of the money.

I understand the argument that if you take away the profit potential, you take away the incentive to research and develop in the first place. But I think patent rights and patent control is a racket where companies can simply buy extensions of their patents by buying legislators that skew and corrupt what otherwise should be a more simplified capitalistic venture.

Personally, I'd say, any patent with life saving or life preserving capabilities (I'd go as far as including survival gear, life saving clothing, testing equipment, and preventative means of survival) should have a 2 year cap on patent exclusivity. That means a company with that patent gets a two year head start on profiting from an invention, and then the doors swing wide open to competition. That company is NOT allowed to gain extensions based on "minor changes" or alterations to their product. The door is open to the world no matter what.

I actually think that would be healthier for competition, as the inventing company or individual can gain some income for their invention, but that company can also avoid complacency because they'll have to come up with the next big thing in order to stay competitive. No more incremental success. Give us the best and fastest now, and continue to get better, or else.

I'll give an example of how incremental change is intentionally abused due to patent rights. SD card memory. 7-8 years ago, they figured out how to create SD card memory. In order to maximize profit, all of the companies involved colluded to slowly increment the capabilities of the technology to maximize profits. So you had options to buy 1 MB, 2 MB, 4 MB, 8 MB, 16 MB and even the robust 32 MB memory sticks, ranging from $20-$200. The problem? Well, making a 32 MB card versus a 1 MB card represented probably $.25 difference in manufacturing. And guess what, they already had an idea on how to make 1 GB cards ready to go. Guess what else. Today, they can probably make 1 TB SD cards for the same cost as 16 GB cards, but aren't doing so because they want to incrementally profit while forcing the consumer to have limits on something that has become highly demanded and highly required in the modern age of tech, memory. Why?

Well, I have a phone right now that could easily have carried 32 or 64 GB of storage space internally without increasing manufacturing costs. Instead, they put in 400 MB. Guess what will come out in 2 years? A larger version of the same phone with an incremental (but not revolutionary) upgraded version of the same phone. This is a collusion of companies, restricted by patents on their collection of products, to prevent the consumer from getting access to the top of the line.

The only thing thats slowed that success is the fact that outside innovation from companies without access to the patent rights for the technology have had to innovate, while those with patent rights and manufacturing rights have crawled along maximizing profits at our expense. Now that cloud storage has become a norm, those SD manufacturers, who should have given us no other reason to want an alternative product, are going to suffer the consequences of competing technology. They never innovated enough while profiting on their incremental strategy (they got complacent), and now many will be driven from the business as the new tech, offered by someone outside their associated colluding group, came up with something better.

Now, this is all not worth getting upset about in the world of technology and entertainment. In fact, its a basic by-roduct of capitalism, and I wouldn't change that in the tech world. But what about when this same practice happens in medicine and food manufacturing? What about when millions are left sick and untreated or hungry and impoverished so that "incremental progress" can be made with the sole purpose of maximizing profits. What if a cure for cancer is actually sitting on someone's shelf at Pfizer right now, but the loss of profit from that cure being made available is too much for Pfizer to give up? That's a moral question I hope the people as a whole aren't being denied right now. But I suspect that to a lesser extent than probably cancer, we are.

 

To be honest, I have no problem with the commercial incentive of art being reduced. In this day and age we are swamped with rubbish in music, movies, television, even books. If media revenue wasn't artificially inflated by IP and everyone who had been overpaid to pull art from their *** found they would make a better living being productive in other fields, we might even be better off overall as far as standard of living.

I also believe that the true Da Vincis and Beethovens would exist even without the promise of becoming millionaires. As I said, IP inflates the price of a good, but there is always a way to turn a profit. Media companies need to continue adapting their business model with technology. Due to the internet CDs are already little more than advertising for a group and the live shows they can sell tickets for (an actual, physical commodity). If they focused on building a business model around the product they actually have physical control over, it would benefit them and IMO it's the only sound answer to the stink they're always making over people "infringing on their rights" to a few hundred megabytes.

 

I think that's my point with Jonas Salk. The prospect of becoming a millionaire has many people working in reverse and gaming the intellectual property laws.

 

I don't know about ending intellectual property laws. But they do need review. Superman should have been public domain quite a while ago.

You can't maintain a monopoly on an idea. You just can't. Intellectual property laws, at some point, are just attempting to do the impossible.

And there's also a point where intellectual property runs contrary to intellectual freedom. Nobody gets to decide what's in my head whether they think I've paid for it or not.

 

I think the concerns about culture and intellectual property need to be thought about. As technology and modern society progress, so do the limits of human involvement in production, manufacturing, and tech innovation. Eventually, the marketplace for human labor in industry will be sparse. Even retail through online means and automated shopping has the potential to eliminate retail from the economic equation. What that creates is a gap in human evolution and advancement that I see getting filled ONLY through education and culture.

The economy of the world will likely ONLY exist through those two enterprises 500-1000 years from now, with every other industry available freely and by automation of robotics. So if you eliminate intellectual property of cultural things, you eliminate one of the few means we'll have as a society to prosper in the future.

In my mind a future utopia is a socialist one where food, medicine and housing is available free and clear, "hard labor" is replaced by robotics, and currency is no longer dollars and cents, but "culture credits". Each individual is responsible for their own cultural creation, writing, sculpting, music, painting, architecture, craft, philosophy, etc, and people essentially trade their own creation for others. Once you strip away the 40 hour work weeks for things like retail strategies, manufacturing and migrant labor, what else would you have left for people to engage in. Education changes (more teachers per classroom and a lot different set of culture based curriculum), as does the use of our time in our daily life.

The "rich" will be so because they are the next Beethovens or Picaso's, as their art would fetch the most "culture credits". They would be assured larger properties, fancier lifestyles etc, without the dollars and cents to pay them.

Of course, our society might NOT go in this direction, but if automation really does take over, what other direction could we possibly go in?

 

To a point I completely agree that unions should not be required for public employment, since government if anybody, should be already offering fair pay/wages, reasonable benefits, and the safest working environment possible to all it’s employees. But they have also proven that they can take advantage of employees who do not have the protection of a union, example being that the Bush administration and a republican congress (supposedly pro military), forced retired military to have to pay for their health insurance (although supplemental still something they were not expecting at that time in their lives) after they were promised full medical benefits as part of their retirement package.
　
　
I doubt seriously either one of us have the answers to everything, but I think it is safe to say if it was up to some reactionaries, would believe it would be better if all government employees were eligible for food stamps.

 

Buck, during the 40's and 50's or during wartime (WWII/Korean/Cold War) in the name of security many Corporations/Companies, not only the auto industry, were awarded contracts (From the Federal) based on *ability to handle* or the infrastructure in place to handle the job.

I think your losing track of consumer influence in the American Economy System, where acceptance of a product/service dictates success, not the Governments influence. The current apparent failures of the "Volt" or "Solar Energy" by that consumer over the Federal's insistence, should pretty well demonstrate the differences...

 

IP laws began in Renaissance Italy, which coincidentally or not, is when the rise of invention occurred. There are no studies that can disprove that. It's not that type of argument.

 

I think I understand how government influence especially govt favoritism can make an industry successful, or break the smaller companies especially out of existence, with a government contract here, and regulation or two there.
　
　
The volt and solar energy?? This is not government manipulation of the economy for the exclusive purpose of maximizing profits in a small sector. These are items the corporate owned government do not support.
　
　
The reason most people can't afford a gimmick car like the volt is the same reason the average consumer cannot purchase a new car, they cost too much. Solar panels is another interesting new technology that has been in a tug of war with the government for decades, obviously not paying the kickbacks and bonuses that the oil industry does. Carter put solar panels on the White House and even with the sticks and stone technology they had then it helped reduce the utility bill, but Reagan yanked the program. If it would have been taken more seriously then maybe there would be a solar panel industry today. Until the right money people influence the government it is the right thing for maximizing profits, or until it can become more affordable it's just another good idea with out enough pushing it into the forefront, or enough pull/practicality to make it both financially feasible or profitable.
　
　
The reason our economy is failing is because of the cronyism involved in manipulating the economy, and favoritism being given for a chosen few. If you are a company with a new workable idea and a government contract, the sooner your product will be available for the public in many cases at a larger scale, computers being one of the main. If the government hadn't financed the computer industry the personal computers would have never been available for so cheap as fast as they were.
　
　
But yea there are exceptions, the pet rock never had a government contract or government mandated influence, and still made millions.

 

In Spain all that you're mentioning is legal and permitted by the concept of private property.

In USA that is illegal.

 

Something we haven't invented yet. But I agree with your post.

 

Don't know, but I'd bet if producers weren't hiding behind intellectual property laws to make their fortunes, they'd have to produce some better stuff.

 

The software industry would be destroyed.

 

good (*)(*)(*)(*)ing luck with that. Edison didn't fund the light bulb with food stamps.

 

Of course they're not hurting. But you need to understand the drug discovery process before understanding their need for some level of protection.

In terms of tax breaks and tax loop holes - this applies to all companies and is separate to this issue.

 

So your type of argument is that correlation is causation and that's your declaration and you are sticking to it. Maybe you should copyright that argument.

 

No - but I'm seeing how technology is making it increasingly difficult to enforce regardless.

Why wouldn't something which you created from your own mind not be your property, to profit from as you can?

 

The United States of America is the world's largest exporter of intellectual property.

In reality, most of our export economy is based on it.

If there were not laws protecting that Intellectual property, it could seriously destroy our economy.

 

They shouldn't be ended, but they could certainly be shortened.

 

The same thing was often said about slavery. That some subsist on the benefits of a system does not make the system moral.

 

The same thing was often said about slavery. That some subsist on the benefits of a system does not make the system just or moral.

 

I was unde the impression that a full patent is not needed for songs. You just need an officially dated copy of the sheet music and lyrics. Or better yet, a demo of the song. Most people do pay for the full copyright but it's not actually needed as long as you can prove that you had the original.

 

As someone in the video game business... heck now. This would destroy us as everyone can steal our crap. And it's not like our stuff is a Polio vaccine and a benefit to mankind. It's art (sometimes), it's made for entertainment. It's made for fun. We're not holding back humanity or harming anyone with our IPs. Making our IPs something that everyone can use would destroy them.


As an artist I am 100% against the literally evil thievery of IPs. You're not STEALING my stuff. My inventions of the mind are mine and mine alone. Nobody else should be able to use my stuff. I mean if I make the Star Wars IP it would be utter bullcrap if everyone could use it.



People quote very real problems with IPs. Things that affect people. Things that can save lives. But you'd screw the whole arts industry if you applied that stuff to EVERYTHING needlessly.
Things that save lives, are massively beneficial to humanity, etc should have unique rules. Things like my business, the business of entertainment, stay the hell away from.
Artists aren't free!

Plus this has no chance of happening. We might reform the laws around them but we wouldn't destroy them in 100 years.