|
|
#41
04-12-2007, 01:00 PM
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Two points against Intellectual property laws
[ 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 ] Do you have details of these subsidies, particularly the size of the subsidy compared to the overall r&d expenditure? Saying that there is some subsidy is a lot different than saying that the government pays for it all. 
|
|
#42
04-12-2007, 01:01 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Two points against Intellectual property laws
[ QUOTE ]
Anybody who thinks that non-profits would ever be able to even come close to duplicating the work of a for-profit drug company, absent IP protections, is just nuts imho. [/ QUOTE ] Even if you were granted the stipulations that only non profits would on medical research and that they weren't overall as effective as for profits the situation could well be better in a lot of respects. Without patents perscription prices would drop, so would hospital costs and insurance costs. What health care is available would be more widely available because of reduced costs. There would also not be doctors with stock in pharma companies, getting taken out to lunches having products thrown at them and having fewer conflict arise over the patients best interest and the doctors best interest.
|
|
#43
04-12-2007, 01:13 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Two points against Intellectual property laws
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] Why is intellectual property so different from regular property, in the mind of the ACist? [/ QUOTE ] Because ideas aren't economically scarce like other forms of property. [/ QUOTE ] No...but the ability to have those ideas is scarce. Not everyone can make a breakthrough in quantum physics. Not everyone can write "Hey Jude." Not everyone can envision a new cancer treatment. Just because there is no tangible restriction on resources doesn't mean that there isn't a restriction on the ability for people to produce those ideas. From Wikipedia: "Goods and services are scarce because of the limited availability of resources (the factors of production) along with the limits on our technology and skillful people relative to the total amount desired. If somehow people desired nothing, there would be no scarcity. If resources were great enough to produce more than anyone desired, there would also be no scarcity." I don't think it can be argued that scarcity doesn't exist for works of art or other innovations, because then, people would have stopped purchasing and demanding new songs, new movies, new innovations. Supply has not overwhelmed demand in this regard, so how can there be no scarcity?
|
|
#44
04-12-2007, 01:22 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Two points against Intellectual property laws
Why does everyone not understand this simple concept? An idea is not bound to being in one physical location like a chair is. If I have a chair, it means everyone else does not have that chair. If I have an idea, it DOES NOT mean that I am depriving anyone else of posession of it.
You are confusing scarcity with rareness. An idea might be rare, but this does not mean it is scarce.
|
|
#45
04-12-2007, 01:24 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Two points against Intellectual property laws
[ QUOTE ]
Why does everyone not understand this simple concept? An idea is not bound to being in one physical location like a chair is. If I have a chair, it means everyone else does not have that chair. If I have an idea, it DOES NOT mean that I am depriving anyone else of posession of it. You are confusing scarcity with rareness. An idea might be rare, but this does not mean it is scarce. [/ QUOTE ] I get that. But I still think people should have the ability to patent their ideas and have possession over them.
|
|
#46
04-12-2007, 01:33 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Two points against Intellectual property laws
[ QUOTE ]
Why does everyone not understand this simple concept? An idea is not bound to being in one physical location like a chair is. If I have a chair, it means everyone else does not have that chair. If I have an idea, it DOES NOT mean that I am depriving anyone else of posession of it. You are confusing scarcity with rareness. An idea might be rare, but this does not mean it is scarce. [/ QUOTE ] Okay...so expand outward with this idea, then. Let's say that all IP laws are dissolved. What does the situation look like for, say, a musician?
|
|
#47
04-12-2007, 01:57 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Two points against Intellectual property laws
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] Why does everyone not understand this simple concept? An idea is not bound to being in one physical location like a chair is. If I have a chair, it means everyone else does not have that chair. If I have an idea, it DOES NOT mean that I am depriving anyone else of posession of it. You are confusing scarcity with rareness. An idea might be rare, but this does not mean it is scarce. [/ QUOTE ] I get that. But I still think people should have the ability to patent their ideas and have possession over them. [/ QUOTE ] The problem with patents is that the idea leads to ridiculous scenarios where nothing is done. Imagine if you had to pay a fee to the estate of Og, the inventor of the wheel, every time you wanted to build a device with a wheel. Now multiply that by every innovation in history. Nothing would ever get done. The solution is that patents only last a certain amount of time. But how much time? It's totally arbitrary. Property rights based on things that are totally arbitrary inevitably lead to conflict, which defeats the purpose of property in the first place. Patents also act to destroy real property rights. If you claim that I cannot use my materials to build a wagon because you "own" the "idea" of the wagon wheel, you have obviously reduced my rigts in my own physical property. Destroying rights in tangible property in deference to rights in some completely itagible concept seems incredibly dangerous to me. A patent is essentially a legalized monopoly granted by the state. If there is one thing that all economists agree on, it is that monopoly is bad for the consumer. "Idea monopoly" is bad it allows the monopolist to a) "rest on his laurels", i.e. not innovate to stay ahead of the competition, because potential competition is legally barred, b) charge monopoly prices, c) provide poor quality because there is no threat of competition, and d) invest more in patent protection litigation than is invested in innovation. Even if one were to concede that all else being equal there would be absolutely less innovation in the absence of patents than with them (which I do not concede, there is no possible way to know this a priori because there are competing incentives that point in opposite directions and no way to ascertain which ones would "win" and under what conditions), that still would not justify the existence of patents, because there is no a priori "correct" amount of innovation. We cannot conclude that because there would be more innovation that this somehow justifies the granting of idea monopolies, any more than the idea that subsidizing research increases the amount of research done somehow justifies the subsidy. Finally, the idea that entrepreneurs and businesses would simply throw up their hands and not innovate to stay ahead of the competition is, quite frankly, farcical to me. What are they going to do, sit on their capital and not invest it? Not try to turn a profit? Not attempt to beat out the competition? Whatever entrepreneurs and businessmen where that stupid would indeed stop innovating, rapidly go out of business and be replaced by entrepreneurs and innovators who chose not to sit on their hands and bitch that someone else "stole their idea".
|
|
#48
04-12-2007, 01:59 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Two points against Intellectual property laws
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] Why does everyone not understand this simple concept? An idea is not bound to being in one physical location like a chair is. If I have a chair, it means everyone else does not have that chair. If I have an idea, it DOES NOT mean that I am depriving anyone else of posession of it. You are confusing scarcity with rareness. An idea might be rare, but this does not mean it is scarce. [/ QUOTE ] Okay...so expand outward with this idea, then. Let's say that all IP laws are dissolved. What does the situation look like for, say, a musician? [/ QUOTE ] No different than it does today for 99.9% of musicians who labor creatively with no hope of being compensated for it?
|
|
#49
04-12-2007, 01:59 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Two points against Intellectual property laws
[ QUOTE ]
No...but the ability to have those ideas is scarce. Not everyone can make a breakthrough in quantum physics. Not everyone can write "Hey Jude." Not everyone can envision a new cancer treatment. Just because there is no tangible restriction on resources doesn't mean that there isn't a restriction on the ability for people to produce those ideas. [/ QUOTE ] And even without IP laws, nobody will be able to steal your "ability to have those ideas". That ability is still scarce, and yours alone.
|
|
#50
04-12-2007, 02:03 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Two points against Intellectual property laws
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] Why does everyone not understand this simple concept? An idea is not bound to being in one physical location like a chair is. If I have a chair, it means everyone else does not have that chair. If I have an idea, it DOES NOT mean that I am depriving anyone else of posession of it. You are confusing scarcity with rareness. An idea might be rare, but this does not mean it is scarce. [/ QUOTE ] Okay...so expand outward with this idea, then. Let's say that all IP laws are dissolved. What does the situation look like for, say, a musician? [/ QUOTE ] Worse than the status quo for some very small percentage of musicians. Then again, dissolvement of any structure based upon coercive force will be bad for *some* number of people.
|
 |
|
|
Linear Mode
