Two points against Intellectual property laws

[NewTeaBag]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The federal government subsidized research behind 45 of the 50 top-selling drugs in the US in 2005. This is common in other industries as well; taxpayers are the ones who foot a large portion of the bill for research, yet drug companies still attain record profit margins selling the drugs back to us.

[/ QUOTE ]

OK, even accepting this, would drug companies bother with the research if there were no profit motive at the end of the development cycle? From a buisness standpoint, I don't see how they could and until there was some other system in place to foster the development, I'd be very wary of eliminating/loosening IP.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well if we're already paying someone to do it, we could easily hire the scientists who had been working for the drug companies once they all close up shop.

[/ QUOTE ]

Are you arguing that a wholly state sponsored and owned research company could achieve anything like the results that a competitive capitalist company could?

[NT!]

[ QUOTE ]

Are you arguing that a wholly state sponsored and owned research company could achieve anything like the results that a competitive capitalist company could?

[/ QUOTE ]

If you hire the exact same scientists, and give them the same funding you were already giving them as part of a 'competitive capitalist company,' do you think they'd just stop trying?

[NewTeaBag]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Are you arguing that a wholly state sponsored and owned research company could achieve anything like the results that a competitive capitalist company could?

[/ QUOTE ]

If you hire the exact same scientists, and give them the same funding you were already giving them as part of a 'competitive capitalist company,' do you think they'd just stop trying?

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm suggesting that Very few if any wholly state sponsored companies can produce/achieve anything like the results/efficiencies of a competitive capatilist company. I think the defence industry is an excellent example of this. Looking at any single source contractor, the cost overuns and inefficiencies are explosive as opposed to competive sourcing. I wouldn't suppose that the scientists working for the single source companies "aren't trying," I would simply say they are far less efficient due to the end motivation being far different.

Perhaps I could just say "innovation seems sparked far more through competition than through altruism."

[NT!]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Are you arguing that a wholly state sponsored and owned research company could achieve anything like the results that a competitive capitalist company could?

[/ QUOTE ]

If you hire the exact same scientists, and give them the same funding you were already giving them as part of a 'competitive capitalist company,' do you think they'd just stop trying?

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm suggesting that Very few if any wholly state sponsored companies can produce/achieve anything like the results/efficiencies of a competitive capatilist company. I think the defence industry is an excellent example of this. Looking at any single source contractor, the cost overuns and inefficiencies are explosive as opposed to competive sourcing. I wouldn't suppose that the scientists working for the single source companies "aren't trying," I would simply say they are far less efficient due to the end motivation being far different.

Perhaps I could just say "innovation seems sparked far more through competition than through altruism."

[/ QUOTE ]

What is the basis for this statement? What 'competitive capitalist companies' are doing a better job of providing services than similar, wholly state sponsored companies?

"Innovation is sponsored more through competition..." ... in this case the innovation is sponsored by the government.

If a scientist is paid the same, and receives the same equipment and funding, why will he work less hard for the government, or for a non-profit, than he will for a corporation? He receives the exact same compensation. There is no difference in end motivation, if you are correct that the end motivation is money.

[tolbiny]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Are you arguing that a wholly state sponsored and owned research company could achieve anything like the results that a competitive capitalist company could?

[/ QUOTE ]

If you hire the exact same scientists, and give them the same funding you were already giving them as part of a 'competitive capitalist company,' do you think they'd just stop trying?

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm suggesting that Very few if any wholly state sponsored companies can produce/achieve anything like the results/efficiencies of a competitive capatilist company. I think the defence industry is an excellent example of this. Looking at any single source contractor, the cost overuns and inefficiencies are explosive as opposed to competive sourcing. I wouldn't suppose that the scientists working for the single source companies "aren't trying," I would simply say they are far less efficient due to the end motivation being far different.

Perhaps I could just say "innovation seems sparked far more through competition than through altruism."

[/ QUOTE ]

What is the basis for this statement? What 'competitive capitalist companies' are doing a better job of providing services than similar, wholly state sponsored companies?

"Innovation is sponsored more through competition..." ... in this case the innovation is sponsored by the government.

If a scientist is paid the same, and receives the same equipment and funding, why will he work less hard for the government, or for a non-profit, than he will for a corporation? He receives the exact same compensation. There is no difference in end motivation, if you are correct that the end motivation is money.

[/ QUOTE ]

There is far more to it that just the scientists. Who gets hired? who get how much funding? How do you run trials? what is the supervision/management structure?

[NewTeaBag]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Are you arguing that a wholly state sponsored and owned research company could achieve anything like the results that a competitive capitalist company could?

[/ QUOTE ]

If you hire the exact same scientists, and give them the same funding you were already giving them as part of a 'competitive capitalist company,' do you think they'd just stop trying?

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm suggesting that Very few if any wholly state sponsored companies can produce/achieve anything like the results/efficiencies of a competitive capatilist company. I think the defence industry is an excellent example of this. Looking at any single source contractor, the cost overuns and inefficiencies are explosive as opposed to competive sourcing. I wouldn't suppose that the scientists working for the single source companies "aren't trying," I would simply say they are far less efficient due to the end motivation being far different.

Perhaps I could just say "innovation seems sparked far more through competition than through altruism."

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
What is the basis for this statement? What 'competitive capitalist companies' are doing a better job of providing services than similar, wholly state sponsored companies?

[/ QUOTE ]

I have already given you an example of the state sponsored companies (defence industry single source suppliers). As a counter example of competitve capatilist companies you need look no further than the supply chains for the auto industry. These suppliers are in a fiercely competitive environment and thus achieve far greater efficiency and productivity in achieving thei output.


[ QUOTE ]
"Innovation is sponsored more through competition..." ... in this case the innovation is sponsored by the government.

[/ QUOTE ]
Assuming your sticking with drug research here, the innovation is "subsidized" by government spending but is still primarily motivated by "endprofit". I think you'll agree there is a difference between this and a wholly governemnt owned and operated company.



[ QUOTE ]
If a scientist is paid the same, and receives the same equipment and funding, why will he work less hard for the government, or for a non-profit, than he will for a corporation? He receives the exact same compensation. There is no difference in end motivation, if you are correct that the end motivation is money.

[/ QUOTE ]


Companies are not run by scientists (in general), they are run by buisnessmen.




PS Please add further content to the debate aside from straight DA questions.
PPS I cant seem to get the quote spacing fixed in this post so pls feel free to use your forumerator powers to make it look clearer. ktx.

[Barfunkel]

[ QUOTE ]

4) Relative to the average salary, artists (and labels) are still making boatloads of money.


[/ QUOTE ]

Do you have any statistics to back that up? Most musicians aren't Justin Timberlake, most labels aren't EMI. Most (recording) musicians that I know don't get paid that much and most have dayjobs as well and many of those who don't are still struggling, making way less than the average salary.

[Coffee]

[ QUOTE ]
What rubs me wrong about his post is that he's basically arguing against IP protection because someone else is still willing to pay for it, and people are still relatively well-off from it. Well, what if they weren't? Would it still be ok? What if artists couldn't make a living, despite being immensely popular? What if there was no funding for innovative new drugs, because there was no money in it? Would patent infringement still be ok?

[/ QUOTE ]

I was having a hard time putting together what my problem with the OP was, but this says it better than I could. I react very emotionally to this issue because I am a musician myself, and although I haven't achieved a level of success to where this is an issue as of yet, I would hate to think that my money stream would be restricted because there was no protection of my creation. I'm a Libertarian, but I don't understand this line of reasoning(and I've heard it before). It seems like the AC line is that anybody could've written a particular song, and that it would've happened eventually, so there is no reason to commemorate the person who "crossed the finish line" first. Given how difficult it is to write a song(that people actually want to hear), I find this a very dubious sentiment. If this is actually the case, why isn't everyone an artist?

Beyond that, NT brought up the exact question I had, which is that while, yes, at this point, a few artists are making good money(quick aside: the majority are not). What happens if they are no longer able to do so? Are you naive enough to think that artists will continue to create, simply because of their love of creation? Even if I concede that creation will continue, where's the incentive to share it, if it will just be pirated and repackaged as the work of anybody else?

Not all artists make a killing. If I have to work an extra year or two years at a different job because rampant theft of my property goes unchecked, is that really right and fair? Why is intellectual property so different from regular property, in the mind of the ACist? Does this mean that every business should have to make public their proprietary materials? Isn't having a good idea and profitting from that idea the whole point of business?

[AlexM]

Music is something where the performance is unique unto it self and cannot be easily replicated by anyone. What about writing? Writers are a lot less profitable in the first palce and it's a lot easier to "steal" their work. For either a novelist or a screenwriter, the dangers of having someone else take your work and publish it without your consent is very real and dangerous. Even worse, what if you put out the first book of a trilogy that ends up really popular and while you're writing your second book someone else puts out a book that claims to be the second book and uses your name and the look of the book is all correct? Now the author and the fans both are clearly getting scammed, but without IP, what recourse do they have? Personally, I think this kind of thing will work itself out in a free market as being agressive behavior and therefor prosecutable, but it's still IP.

[NT!]

[ QUOTE ]
Companies are not run by scientists (in general), they are run by buisnessmen.

[/ QUOTE ]

You didn't answer my question. My question was, if he was compensated the same, why would a scientist work less hard for a university or a non-profit organization or the government than he would for a for-profit company?

Businessmen don't design drugs. They select the research topic, they gather the funding and they market the product.

You tell me that the market drives drug manufacturers to make better products, do better research, and thus contribute more to society. But when I look at the drug industry, they've spent MY money developing pills to prevent hair loss or give me a rock-hard erection. The most lucrative drugs on the market, and those that garner the highest priority in research and development, are lifestyle drugs. Meanwhile there are only a handful of clinical trials in the world aimed at finding a vaccine for AIDS.

Meanwhile, the cost of health care spirals out of control for Americans, with prescription drugs as a major factor. I am a United States taxpayer. I 'invested' (involuntarily) in the research that went into that drug. I didn't get a 36% return on my investment, as some private companies did last year. Nor did the US Treasury. That profit went straight to their pockets, while the people who paid for the research struggled to pay for the drugs as well.

So I am really struggling to understand how the free market is doing me such a favor when it comes to prescription drugs.