Intellectual Property - pros and cons

Brainiachick

Active Member
[Mick: tread split and renamed from https://www.metabunk.org/showthread.php?p=38426#post38426 ]

Hello I posted a link to a petition against Nestle because I'm against all intellectual property but now I fear because of my strong feelings on this position maybe I'm spread bunk news. So I Googled nestle and patent and a bunch of conspiracy sites came up. I'm I part of the problem. (Maybe this is the wrong section I don't really care if Fennel flower is a cure all or not.)


http://action.sumofus.org/a/nestle-nigella-sativa/5/2/?sub=fb


Certainly is saturation coverage at the moment.
The only slight bunk I could find is that it's not 'fennel' (Foeniculum vulgare) as we know it but nigella sativa, or black cumin. It is known as fennel flower though.

I don't know if it's even possible to claim a natural product as a patent unless you change it somehow. Or is it okay to patent a *use* of a naturally occuring product? Does that restrict others from using it?
Also, bastards.


I understand your concern about possibly spreading bunk and I'm afraid you may indeed have. I have extensive knowledge of scientific research and development, and some knowledge of patent law, so I will do my best to answer your questions. It is extremely difficult to claim patent over a naturally occurring product for which some use has been identified. One of the major difficulties here is the extent to which one can lay claims to this being an invention or discovery of any sort without isolation, purification or some sort of modification; or a specific discovery of a scientific nature. It is possible to obtain patent even when a general use of a product has been previously identified or established, if a discovery of its chemical or genetic structure or its specific metabolic pathway which was previously unknown is subsequently made. So one can't just run off into a field of cannabis - and shout "Hurray, I own this - it should be patented now - so only I can smoke this stuff and sell it". However if one does discover a new use for cannabis or a new chemical or scientific property or structure, this can be patented. The patent applies to the discovery and not to the natural product itself. So if Nestle can demonstrate a unique discovery pertaining to this flower in a way that it has not been discovered or registered before, they can apply for the patent and can potentially obtain such a patent. However, that does not infringe on the rights of others to grow, eat, sell or do whatever they want to do with this product. In my humble opinion, I think these petitions are not factually based and may have been blown out of proportion because it has largely been taken out of context to mean that Nestle wants to patent the plant rather than Nestle's specific scientific discovery. That is a long stretch. What would be key here is to examine the actual Nestle patent application to see exactly what they are applying for. I have not seen such a document online or anywhere else, so I cannot speculate, but from my previous knowledge and experience of working with a multinational giant competitor of Nestle, and having understudied and analysed Nestle as part of my Competitors Intelligence, I would be surprised if Nestle took such an unwise leap to try and patent the flower, rather than their discovery of something about the flower. I hope this helps to clarify things for you.

Thomas, I am however curious to know why you are against all intellectual property - are you an inventor?
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Cairenn

Senior Member.
I have a problem with folks being against intellectual property. To me, it says that being able to invent, discover or create something new is a worthless skill.

I am an artist, I create jewelry and other art. I do not want someone stealing my design, sending it to a factory in China or in Asia and then selling the product to the dollar store.
 

Brainiachick

Active Member
I have a problem with folks being against intellectual property. To me, it says that being able to invent, discover or create something new is a worthless skill.

I am an artist, I create jewelry and other art. I do not want someone stealing my design, sending it to a factory in China or in Asia and then selling the product to the dollar store.

Precisely! I am a Biochemist with a special interest in Genetics, Metabolism, and Enzymology and I minored in Atomic Physics, Chemistry and Microbiology. I no longer work in that field anymore, but in my time as a Biochemist, I made discovery that was published - although I never had it patented, I would hate to think that I would be prevented from doing so! It was my sweat, my brainchild, my discovery and at my personal cost. Why would anyone want to deny me the right to own what is mine?

Today, I work in a completely different field but still have the same ticking brain, so I am currently developing 2 products - one is a petroleum derivative product and the other is an improvement on a parasitical control device. I would be looking into patenting. So for the life of me, I can't grasp why someone would be against that.



don't think of it as worthless but priceless.

I don't quite get your post. Could you kindly elaborate please? And would you also be so kind to explain why you are against all intellectual property? Are you an inventor or a user?
 
Real scarcity causes so much suffering. The idea of creating an artificial scarcity with these laws so one can provide for himself seems wrong to me.The real problem is technology is advancing to the point where scarcity(which is the driver of the markets) is being erased from the equation and the only way to keep in the equation is by law.
 

Jay Reynolds

Senior Member.
If inventions became worthless to the inventor, the inventor would have little incentive to invent anymore. The result would be a scarcity of invention, leading to a stagnation of progress and technology rather than the advance you acknowledge has been happening.

Invention solves scarcity by finding substitutes for scarce products.

For example, fiber optics, cell and satellite have reduced the need for copper wires strung out forever. Google is testing a worldwide wifi network using stratospheric balloons.

The patent system offers the inventor exclusive rights to his invention, but he can also offer it to others willing to pay, and the exclusive right has a limited life to avoid a perpetual monopoly.

In example of how a lack of property rights in general stifles progress might be to come up with a list of practical inventions made by the USSR while under communism. Not just patents filed (and yes they did so, as a state), but really 'revolutionary' innovative things we find regularly indispensible in our lives. Can you name a few?
 

Brainiachick

Active Member
Real scarcity causes so much suffering. The idea of creating an artificial scarcity with these laws so one can provide for himself seems wrong to me.The real problem is technology is advancing to the point where scarcity(which is the driver of the markets) is being erased from the equation and the only way to keep in the equation is by law.


Thomas, thank you for responding and attempting to clarify your position. I hope I am not jumping the gun here by assuming that you are perhaps a user rather than an inventor? And there is nothing wrong with being a user. What is somewhat clear in your post is that on the one hand, you appear to be viewing this from a balance or scale of fairness point of view: scarcity is not fair on the user, so creating artificial scarcity makes life even harsher. But on the other hand, you completely ignore the rights of the inventors to own their invention or even be acknowledged for their hardwork. I must confess I have serious issue with that both on a practical and fairness. From what you have written, you are dead wrong both from the point of view of fairness and from the economic point of view that patenting creates scarcity. That is simply not true.


From the fairness standpoint, how is it fair to deny an inventor a right to own his invention? [Which is what intellectual property is all about]. From the economic standpoint, how does intellectual property create scarcity? How can you make scarce something that did not exist until you invented it?


The concept of scarcity in the framework of the economic laws of 'Demand and Supply' have very little to do with intellectual property laws - very little or none. The pivotal point you have not examined is that an inventor wants to get his invention out there to as many users as possible, but at the same time protect his position as the inventor. To me that is a fair - win, win situation. Inventors do not invent just so that they can with-hold their invention. That does not make sense if you want to turn in an income or a profit or to simply meet the need of the people for whom you have conceived this idea. Do remember, inventors are driven people - driven by the passion of meeting a need! And it is not always all about the money.


The issue of scarcity of a particular product often happens further down the line during its life cycle for a myriad of reasons ranging from production capacity, demand, supply chain logistics, distribution, storage, haulage, export laws etc etc. My father was a respected Economist and Central Banker and he instilled in me, amongst many other things, the love of Economics; he would have gravely disagreed with you and challenged you to look at the bigger picture.


Finally I think, and I stand to be corrected, that your fear of this matter emanates from your understanding of how intellectual property actually works hence your resistance to what it appears to mean to you. Acting upon fear or upon a limited understanding of a matter can have negative far reaching consequences as you can clearly see from your 'Nestle Patent' experience. And I totally understand that you meant well. It would therefore appear that a good starting point is, from an objective point of view, to examine what intellectual property laws seek to achieve. It is simply to give honour to whom honour is due (yes there will be income to be made) and regulate imitation [which is a horrendous nightmare]; it in no way creates or seek to create scarcity of something that did not even exist before it was created or invented or subsequently.
 
If inventions became worthless to the inventor, the inventor would have little incentive to invent anymore. The result would be a scarcity of invention, leading to a stagnation of progress and technology rather than the advance you acknowledge has been happening.

It is my thinking that a lot of inventions start off with just trying to find a better way of doing something.Once one believes he is on to something,that he has made a breakthrough that is really beneficiary if the inventor is not the direct beneficiary he may looks for ways to insure he becomes the direct beneficiary. So I still think the primary incentive is the invention itself and I'm not worried that things will stop progressing if we got rid of intellectual property.

Thinking about the problem of incentive has really made me think of a humorous analogy of where we are in history and the maturity of civilization,which I'll get to in sec, part of the problem is we lack the sensitivity to feel the benefits our invention when it we are not the direct beneficiary. This type of sensitivity can only come with the maturity with seeing the whole picture.Now for that analogy, I think we need to look at this money as incentive thing not as a permanent t rewards program of good work but as a temporary civilizing process until we develop the sensitivity to feel the merit of good work for its own right.Like a training a child to go do his business on the potty parents usually find what candy the child really likes and promises that as an incentive but the child essentially develops the sensitivity and then feels the benefits from not crapping himself. In many ways we are worse than the child soiling himself unless Mom coughs up some M&Ms we are more like a child who has figured the M&Ms is whats making him poop and doesn't want his situation to change. This is exactly where we find ourselves in the developmental process of civilization.Hopefully we can figure out there is more to life than M&Ms.
 

Cairenn

Senior Member.
Thomas, say a professor that tells his class, that their grade will not be based on their work, but that of the highest grade in the class. How many of those students are going to do ANY classwork, homework or take the tests? There will be one or 2 students that will, at the most at least at first, after they make an A and everyone gets an A, do you think any of them will, UNLESS it is a class they are taking for fun?

The Soviets tried that and it worked like a pile of horse droppings.

What you want is the right to STEAL from others that have more talents/skills than you. What is the difference between that and walking into a store and stealing an I phone, because you want it? I don't see a difference.
 
"UNLESS it is a class they are taking for fun?"

unless it is a class they are taking to learn the subject. These students need to grow up and learn for sake of knowing and feel the benefits of learning for learning/(not walking around with crap in my pants) not for high grades/(M&Ms).This reward/punishment way of bringing kids up is a necessary trick. Once they see the rewards in hard work brings in itself why must we continue the trick, In your example the students are giving the m&ms whether they do the work or not. Unfortunately If we are to extend this analogy to these students I agree with you, that most kids have not learnt that crapping in the potty is beneficial to them without the m&ms being brought into the equation. Just like most people haven't learnt that helping others is beneficial to them whether they get paid to or not.

"The Soviets tried that and it worked like a pile of horse droppings."

Man has tried to fly for years without success what is always a game changer in our success is our technology advancements I'm not saying we do what soviets tried that would be return to the idea of gluing feathers to our arms and flapping and hoping for flight.


"What you want is the right to STEAL from others that have more talents/skills than you. What is the difference between that and walking into a store and stealing an I phone, because you want it? I don't see a difference."

ALL I can really say here is I can differentiate copying someones ideas from stealing someone's physical possessions. Maybe because I think everything I learnt in this world is really just me copying someone else's idea on the other hand all my possessions I don't feel were stolen from someone else.
 

Cairenn

Senior Member.
I disagree, to steal my IDEAS is no different than stealing my belongings. I would hate to admit to never having an original thought. I had original thoughts before I started school.

My mom was trimming the hedges and picked up some of the trimmings and made bases for them from modeling clay and I used them around the building block house I had built. Then I made a jungle with some more of them and placed my jungle animals in it. NO ONE gave me that idea, When a neighbor commented to my mom on it, that she was smart to have thought of doing that, my mom admitted that it wasn't her, that it was my idea.

Maybe you are too young to remember the 'hippie' communes of the 60s and 70s. They all FAILED because not enough folks were willing to do the HARD work.

I have NO respect for those that want to benefit from my WORK or skill or talent, without paying me for it. Someday maybe things will change, but as long as the power company needs to be paid and I need to buy food and clothing, I DEMAND to be paid.
 

Jay Reynolds

Senior Member.
Thomas, we aren't talking about children here. There is no analogy between encouraging a child's behavior and grown ups earning their living producing things.

Adults have to earn a living in this world somehow. Some choose to do a service for pay, some do hourly or salary work, some expect others to support them.

Some choose to use their own mind's creativity to make their living. To take away their right to own an idea for a period of time is to take away their right to earn a living from their work.

This is a simple concept. Think about the author who spends a year writing a book. The book contains the writer's ideas on paper. The author expects to have the exclusive right to publish that book to earn his living. Would it be right for anyone else to print copies of the book and earn money from the author's work? They would be depriving the author of the expected benefit from his year's worth of work. The author's right to earn a living has been stolen from him by someone else.

If you cannot understand how a person's right to ownership of an idea can be a valuable thing deserving just as much protection as any other physical possession, you need to look deep inside yourself and ask why, because doing so is no different from stealing someone's shoes.
 
I disagree, to steal my IDEAS is no different than stealing my belongings. I would hate to admit to never having an original thought. I had original thoughts before I started school.

My mom was trimming the hedges and picked up some of the trimmings and made bases for them from modeling clay and I used them around the building block house I had built. Then I made a jungle with some more of them and placed my jungle animals in it. NO ONE gave me that idea, When a neighbor commented to my mom on it, that she was smart to have thought of doing that, my mom admitted that it wasn't her, that it was my idea.

This is my exhibit A why/how there is no need for incentive for inventing other then the delight of the invention itself.

"I have NO respect for those that want to benefit from my WORK or skill or talent, without paying me for it. Someday maybe things will change, but as long as the power company needs to be paid and I need to buy food and clothing, I DEMAND to be paid."

I'm sure you could think of people who have
benefit from your WORK or skill or talents without paying you whom you have plenty respect. Maybe your jungle made from trimmight apply here.


"but as long as the power company needs to be paid and I need to buy food and clothing, I DEMAND to be paid."

this is the real pickle? isn't?

This is the pickle.





 
Thomas, thank you for responding and attempting to clarify your position. I hope I am not jumping the gun here by assuming that you are perhaps a user rather than an inventor? And there is nothing wrong with being a user. What is somewhat clear in your post is that on the one hand, you appear to be viewing this from a balance or scale of fairness point of view: scarcity is not fair on the user, so creating artificial scarcity makes life even harsher. But on the other hand, you completely ignore the rights of the inventors to own their invention or even be acknowledged for their hardwork. I must confess I have serious issue with that both on a practical and fairness. From what you have written, you are dead wrong both from the point of view of fairness and from the economic point of view that patenting creates
scarcity. That is simply not true.


sorry I missed your post


From the fairness standpoint, how is it fair to deny an inventor a right to own his invention? [Which is what intellectual property is all about]. From the economic standpoint, how does intellectual property create scarcity? How can you make scarce something that did not exist until you invented it?


The concept of scarcity in the framework of the economic laws of 'Demand and Supply' have very little to do with intellectual property laws - very little or none. The pivotal point you have not examined is that an inventor wants to get his invention out there to as many users as possible, but at the same time protect his position as the inventor. To me that is a fair - win, win situation. Inventors do not invent just so that they can with-hold their invention. That does not make sense if you want to turn in an income or a profit or to simply meet the need of the people for whom you have conceived this idea. Do remember, inventors are driven people - driven by the passion of meeting a need! And it is not always all about the money.


The issue of scarcity of a particular product often happens further down the line during its life cycle for a myriad of reasons ranging from production capacity, demand, supply chain logistics, distribution, storage, haulage, export laws etc etc. My father was a respected Economist and Central Banker and he instilled in me, amongst many other things, the love of Economics; he would have gravely disagreed with you and challenged you to look at the bigger picture.


Finally I think, and I stand to be corrected, that your fear of this matter emanates from your understanding of how intellectual property actually works hence your resistance to what it appears to mean to you. Acting upon fear or upon a limited understanding of a matter can have negative far reaching consequences as you can clearly see from your 'Nestle Patent' experience. And I totally understand that you meant well. It would therefore appear that a good starting point is, from an objective point of view, to examine what intellectual property laws seek to achieve. It is simply to give honour to whom honour is due (yes there will be income to be made) and regulate imitation [which is a horrendous nightmare]; it in no way creates or seek to create scarcity of something that did not even exist before it was created or invented or subsequently.

I'm sorry I missed your post and I'm glad I went back to read your well thought out criticism.Let me try and show you what I meant

Patents and copyrights create scarcity by not allowing someone to copy there invention or art. an example: now once someone has done all the work into making a film it now can be copied and shared to everyone that has a computer.Making their work nearly as abundant as air itself. We have solved the problem in the availability and the distribution of all audio and video. but we have laws to create an artificial scarcity so the artist can continue to earn a living. but everything can be broken down into zeros and ones and with the inventions like 3d printing soon everything will be able to be copied with as much ease. but these laws make it illegal only to keep abundance in everything from happening.

People were making music, making movies and writing books long before and copyrights laws were enforced. and they will continue because its fun to do. Also people will continue to invent whether they are paid for their invention or not because that's just what we like to do.
 

Cairenn

Senior Member.
Copyright and patent laws are a lot older than you think.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_patent_law

Here is the REASON Why

A great writer denied what he was due, because of 'pirates'. What other great works would he have created?



http://opensource.com/law/11/6/story-st-columba-modern-copyright-battle-sixth-century-ireland
 

Brainiachick

Active Member
I'm sorry I missed your post and I'm glad I went back to read your well thought out criticism.Let me try and show you what I meant

Patents and copyrights create scarcity by not allowing someone to copy there invention or art. an example: now once someone has done all the work into making a film it now can be copied and shared to everyone that has a computer.Making their work nearly as abundant as air itself. We have solved the problem in the availability and the distribution of all audio and video. but we have laws to create an artificial scarcity so the artist can continue to earn a living. but everything can be broken down into zeros and ones and with the inventions like 3d printing soon everything will be able to be copied with as much ease. but these laws make it illegal only to keep abundance in everything from happening.

People were making music, making movies and writing books long before and copyrights laws were enforced. and they will continue because its fun to do. Also people will continue to invent whether they are paid for their invention or not because that's just what we like to do.


Thanks for your response.

A couple of things I will point out to you is the trouble with your child toilet training analogy is the lack of correlation to the issue of intellectual property law. Secondly, you appear to completely ignore the fact that many children can be toilet trained without M&Ms or other candies being used as incentives. They are encouraged to do their business in the toilet because it is what big babies do....and they do it! Just a little encouragement so they know it is the next phase in their development and it is good for them.

You also appear to be singularly focused on inventions being a money-making outlet/that is the primary consideration for the inventor when this is simply not true in majority of inventions. Inventors invent primarily because of DRIVE to IMPROVE something, or to create something useful to make life easier and the fact that they are gifted; and they are not lazy. Money is made, because it is due. Ever heard of giving honor to whom honor is due? Besides, a patent does not prevent an inventor from waiving his/her right to earn in certain instances or deals that may have brought in revenue but for which he/she has chosen to take no income. Patent is primarily to protect an inventor's right to own his/her invention and the more I consider the fact that you are against that, the more I find it difficult to understand your rationale. Making money is a good and healthy thing - why do you hate that? Until you can provide an inventor free housing, free top notch education for his/her kids, pay all their bills, pay for their interests and holidays etc.....please do not complain about intellectual property laws...please. Nothing is free in this world, so I am very concerned that you suggests that some people should be deprived of a living just because they actually put in some efforts into making life better! So how do you suggest they earn a living and pay their bills?

Finally, I have asked you [and I believe] on more than one occasion if you were a user or an inventor, but you have failed to answer that question - I think, my friend, therein lies the reason that shapes your thought process on this matter. I don't think I have anything further to add, if you honestly do not see the difference between stealing a physical item and stealing an idea. I can tell you that I have been a victim of this sort of theft and the feeling is....NOT good. My respectful suggestion is that you pay some mind to Jay and Cairenn's comments because I think there is a lot of balance and wisdom in them.
 

Jay Reynolds

Senior Member.
Thomas, I have some questions for you.
Do you earn your own living, and are you responsible for providing the means for others, such as a family, to survive?
Have you ever done so or do you ever intend to do so?
Have you ever produced something physical which did not exist before and be recompensed for it?
Have you ever had something of value taken from you unjustly?

If you haven't had these experiences, maybe that is why you don't respect the value of private or intellectual property.
 
My analogy was more general and meant to show how this idea that people need an ulterior incentive other than what the work produces itself is nonsense. We might be in agreement here:

"You also appear to be singularly focused on inventions being a money-making outlet/that is the primary consideration for the inventor when this is simply not true in majority of inventions. Inventors invent primarily because of DRIVE to IMPROVE something, or to create something useful to make life easier and the fact that they are gifted; and they are not lazy."

" Until you can provide an inventor free housing, free top notch education for his/her kids, pay all their bills, pay for their interests and holidays etc.....please do not complain about intellectual property laws...please. Nothing is free in this world, so I am very concerned that you suggests that some people should be deprived of a living just because they actually put in some efforts into making life better! So how do you suggest they earn a living and pay their bills?"

http://www.thevenusproject.com/en/the-venus-project
 
since you keep wondering the last two years all my activities I have done without payment. I have painted someone's entire house, I have writing songs, I have shoveled 5 neighbors driveway for two winters. I have fixed and least 40 computer problems of friends.and when they ask what doI owe you. I say "what do you mean?" if they continue to push their funny paper on me I say politely no I'm thanks I'm a communist If they buy me a bottle of wine I return in no I'm we are no longer in the barter system. Things sometimes get ugly because I don't accept there funny paper bullshit. keep your fucking M&MS I not going to shit my pants!
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
Arguing for or against extreme positions (like abolishing money and intellectual property) is rather academic. We are never going to arrive at the extremes, but we are certainly going to redefine the lines. What should be patentable? How long should patents last? What constitutes prior art? What is obvious?

Being from the computer world I strongly feel the current patent system is broken, and reform is needed. I particular I think that we would be better off without software patents, and would support any move in that direction.

There are actually some promising things going on:
http://mashable.com/2013/06/05/obama-software-patents/

One huge problem with patents is that they are generally so technical that it's practically impossible to get any kind of popular support for reform.
 
curious, mick have you seen the zeitgeist addendum and moving forward?I'm Interested in what do you make of Joseph's criticisms of economics.
 

Soulfly

Banned
Banned
Arguing for or against extreme positions (like abolishing money and intellectual property) is rather academic. We are never going to arrive at the extremes, but we are certainly going to redefine the lines.
Off topic a bit.
I wonder if 3D printing at some point in the future could be something like Star Trek's replicator technology. Could this end the need for money? Could the ability to print anything out in ones home make the need for manufacturing obsolete. Could 3D printed food be a main stay of the future. I suppose it could be purchasing a program of an item instead of going to the store to buy it.
 
Off topic a bit.
I wonder if 3D printing at some point in the future could be something like Star Trek's replicator technology. Could this end the need for money? Could the ability to print anything out in ones home make the need for manufacturing obsolete. Could 3D printed food be a main stay of the future. I suppose it could be purchasing a program of an item instead of going to the store to buy it.

When we have machines that replicates anything and not just pictures,books,videos & software like the ones we have now. why would we still want to keep track of who owes and who is owed. The only reason as whole we would agreed to such a state of fairs is we want more than someone else-so abundance must be stopped with intellectual property laws.absolutely insanity.
 

Cairenn

Senior Member.
We are seeing the movement away from mass production now. Look at the increase in artistinal breweries, wineries, spirit makers, cheeses even meat and produce.

Some folks will be content to wear something that a million can have. Others will be willing to PAY for the work of someone's minds and hands.

It is a shame that you seem to feel that anything someone else has should be yours, because you want it. There will be NO movies if no one can be paid for their work. Lots of bad homemade videos instead. New books will be thing of the past, if you and yours get your way.

It is WORK to write a book, or make a piece of jewelry or write a song. I have NO problem with folks being paid for WORK. You seem to want to take from others. Shoveling someone's walk won't PAY the artist whose work you steal.
 

Jay Reynolds

Senior Member.
When we have machines that replicates anything and not just pictures,books,videos & software like the ones we have now. why would we still want to keep track of who owes and who is owed. The only reason as whole we would agreed to such a state of fairs is we want more than someone else-so abundance must be stopped with intellectual property laws.absolutely insanity.

Thomas, you still need raw materials to feed the replicating devices and to build the devices themselves. I see you have not produced anything but rather do service work. This perhaps explains why you don't understand, plus being a communist. I have had the pleasure of personally producing things that did not exist on earth before and learned much from it. Your choice to live as you like but some of us must work to earn for others who cannot provide for themselves. In a communist society, my work product would be taken away from me and redistributed to others. I like the state of affairs where I make that choice, and will do all I can to stop any advance of communism, a corrupt system which discourages innovation by removing incentive and legalizes theft of a person's work product. Nothing further to say.
 

Brainiachick

Active Member
Thomas, you still need raw materials to feed the replicating devices and to build the devices themselves. I see you have not produced anything but rather do service work. This perhaps explains why you don't understand, plus being a communist. I have had the pleasure of personally producing things that did not exist on earth before and learned much from it. Your choice to live as you like but some of us must work to earn for others who cannot provide for themselves. In a communist society, my work product would be taken away from me and redistributed to others. I like the state of affairs where I make that choice, and will do all I can to stop any advance of communism, a corrupt system which discourages innovation by removing incentive and legalizes theft of a person's work product. Nothing further to say.


Seconded!
 

M Bornong

Senior Member.
People were making music, making movies and writing books long before and copyrights laws were enforced. and they will continue because its fun to do. Also people will continue to invent whether they are paid for their invention or not because that's just what we like to do.

Thomas, you do realize that the Statue of Queen Anne was enacted in 1710 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statute_of_Anne). This was brought about due to the Age of Enlightenment. Prior to that time, literacy was mostly limited to the nobles. There was no need for copyright laws. This was long before there were movies, at that time all of the music, except for the traveling bards who relied on handouts, was manuscript in the hand of the composer, so he had control of it's distribution. Most composers of that time actually were supported by their benefactor, usually royalty.

The laws caught up to the time, and they are required to this day. As a musician, I am glad that there are watchdogs like ASCAP and BMI, , and others for certain arts that are out there collecting the royalties for those who own the rights. For the vast majority, whether it be a novel, a painting, a song, in Cairenn's case jewelry and other art, it is usually a pittance and in no way covers the time and energy actually involved. It's why most of us artists have to supplement our incomes with "real" jobs, in my case I'm a plumber.
 

Jay Reynolds

Senior Member.
Nice post. It is indeed good thing that you mentioned in your post that we should do something for them who can not do by themselves. For me humanity means to live for others without thinking of reward.

The reference was for my family, my wife and children. It's easy to be somewhat irresponsible when one has no responsibility other than self.
 

Grieves

Senior Member
Thomas, I have some questions for you.
Do you earn your own living, and are you responsible for providing the means for others, such as a family, to survive?
Have you ever done so or do you ever intend to do so?
Have you ever produced something physical which did not exist before and be recompensed for it?
Have you ever had something of value taken from you unjustly?

If you haven't had these experiences, maybe that is why you don't respect the value of private or intellectual property.
I see you have not produced anything but rather do service work. This perhaps explains why you don't understand, plus being a communist. I have had the pleasure of personally producing things that did not exist on earth before and learned much from it.
Personal anecdotes I've got nothing against when they're being provided, but to request them so as to render judgement on a persons ability to understand an issue seems distasteful. His opinion differs from yours in regard to some fundamental basics of exchange. That doesn't equate to a failure to understand anything other than, perhaps, your differing opinion. That you hold a patent on something or other and he doesn't makes you no more 'qualified' than he in what, Mick points out, amounts to a largely academic/philosophical arguement.
I hope I am not jumping the gun here by assuming that you are perhaps a user rather than an inventor? And there is nothing wrong with being a user. What is somewhat clear in your post is that on the one hand, you appear to be viewing this from a balance or scale of fairness point of view: scarcity is not fair on the user, so creating artificial scarcity makes life even harsher. But on the other hand, you completely ignore the rights of the inventors to own their invention or even be acknowledged for their hardwork. I must confess I have serious issue with that both on a practical and fairness.
Finally, I have asked you [and I believe] on more than one occasion if you were a user or an inventor, but you have failed to answer that question - I think, my friend, therein lies the reason that shapes your thought process on this matter. I don't think I have anything further to add, if you honestly do not see the difference between stealing a physical item and stealing an idea. I can tell you that I have been a victim of this sort of theft and the feeling is....NOT good. My respectful suggestion is that you pay some mind to Jay and Cairenn's comments because I think there is a lot of balance and wisdom in them.

I find this an exceedingly interesting premise, 'User' or 'Inventor'. The connotation isn't so uncommon, but is usually the more neutral producer/consumer. This variant invokes a far more clear divide, a positive and a negative. There's nothing wrong with being a 'user', but 'users', as you suggest, understandably lack the broader perspective of the inventors, and so can't understand the importance of patent-law in society. I wonder, are you aware you're drawing this 'class' distinction, and of the implication of superiority within the 'class' you find yourself?

Patent-law is complicated and largely outdated. What Thomas seems to be discussing isn't the end of just patent law, but a general paradigm shift in what we value as a global society, and the way we structure our cultures... that patent law is just one aspect of an absurd system which fabricates needs and scarcities for the sake of better business for the few at the life-impeding expense of others. To say "'Inventors' need to make a living too, and deserve recognition, thus the current system of patent law and by extension the current global paradigm of commerce is A-OK" is a very simplistic way to answer that sentiment, just as implying patent-law is the, or even a major factor in the broader system of exploitative commerce is a very simplistic way to pose that sentiment.
 

Brainiachick

Active Member
I find this an exceedingly interesting premise, 'User' or 'Inventor'. The connotation isn't so uncommon, but is usually the more neutral producer/consumer. This variant invokes a far more clear divide, a positive and a negative. There's nothing wrong with being a 'user', but 'users', as you suggest, understandably lack the broader perspective of the inventors, and so can't understand the importance of patent-law in society. I wonder, are you aware you're drawing this 'class' distinction, and of the implication of superiority within the 'class' you find yourself?

Patent-law is complicated and largely outdated. What Thomas seems to be discussing isn't the end of just patent law, but a general paradigm shift in what we value as a global society, and the way we structure our cultures... that patent law is just one aspect of an absurd system which fabricates needs and scarcities for the sake of better business for the few at the life-impeding expense of others. To say "'Inventors' need to make a living too, and deserve recognition, thus the current system of patent law and by extension the current global paradigm of commerce is A-OK" is a very simplistic way to answer that sentiment, just as implying patent-law is the, or even a major factor in the broader system of exploitative commerce is a very simplistic way to pose that sentiment.


I find this an exceedingly interesting premise, 'User' or 'Inventor'. The connotation isn't so uncommon, but is usually the more neutral producer/consumer. This variant invokes a far more clear divide, a positive and a negative. There's nothing wrong with being a 'user', but 'users', as you suggest, understandably lack the broader perspective of the inventors, and so can't understand the importance of patent-law in society. I wonder, are you aware you're drawing this 'class' distinction, and of the implication of superiority within the 'class' you find yourself?

Patent-law is complicated and largely outdated. What Thomas seems to be discussing isn't the end of just patent law, but a general paradigm shift in what we value as a global society, and the way we structure our cultures... that patent law is just one aspect of an absurd system which fabricates needs and scarcities for the sake of better business for the few at the life-impeding expense of others. To say "'Inventors' need to make a living too, and deserve recognition, thus the current system of patent law and by extension the current global paradigm of commerce is A-OK" is a very simplistic way to answer that sentiment, just as implying patent-law is the, or even a major factor in the broader system of exploitative commerce is a very simplistic way to pose that sentiment.


Grieves, I express my appreciation that you find the premise of my chosen words 'user' and 'inventor' 'exceedingly interesting'. Thank you! And though my intention was not a deliberate attempt to create a clear divide, I have no issues with that clarity. For me, it was simply interchangeable with end-user/manufacturer or consumer/producer. I see no difference, but I certainly do not accept that the divide is a positive and a negative or should be seen as such. Everyone can't be inventors and there's nothing wrong with being a user of a product or an invention. Besides if we were all inventors, we couldn't possibly be experts and inventors in all fields/spheres of life. Clearly this perspective of negative or positive divide, in my humble opinion, is a moot point.

Btw, we've passed motion on this thread. It should perhaps now be retired.
 

Grieves

Senior Member
Grieves, I express my appreciation that you find the premise of my chosen words 'user' and 'inventor' 'exceedingly interesting'. Thank you!
You're welcome. :)

And though my intention was not a deliberate attempt to create a clear divide, I have no issues with that clarity. For me, it was simply interchangeable with end-user/manufacturer or consumer/producer.
Indeed, the concepts are similar, with a key difference.

I see no difference, but I certainly do not accept that the divide is a positive and a negative or should be seen as such.
I'll try to explain it. The relationships between the consumer/producer or end-user/manufacturer are not mutually exclusive, and imply no real separation beyond who's on which end of the line between production and purchase for a specific product. A producer is also inherently a consumer, a consumer is quite likely to produce something as well. The divide you're making is similar, but not the same. As you say, "Everyone can't be inventors and there's nothing wrong with being a user of a product or an invention.". Not a false statement surely, but it immediately clarifies the difference between 'producer/consumer' and 'inventor/user' where your usage is concerned. The line your drawing is between those with the gumption and skill to invent new things, and those 'users' who lack/don't employ these qualities, and then applying it in the broader context of 'producer/consumer'. You've even implied a difference in comprehension between this divide when you said "Finally, I have asked you [and I believe] on more than one occasion if you were a user or an inventor, but you have failed to answer that question - I think, my friend, therein lies the reason that shapes your thought process on this matter." , implying that 'inventors' have greater perspective.

Btw, we've passed motion on this thread. It should perhaps now be retired.
As you please.
 
Something I didn't see mentioned is that intellectual property rights are required in order to allow the producer to create more intellect.

It's not simply "you have to make a living somehow." Inventing takes time and money. Prototypes are not free. Raw materials must be purchased, and most inventions involve many failures that are not only costly, but effectively useless.

Time spent inventing is not spent working at a job receiving pay. Likewise for creating art, music, or literature. If authors didn't receive royalties for their books, they would have to work 9-5's. That would leave most of them with too little time and energy for serious writing. That would make me sad, because I already have to wait so long for the next Song of Ice and Fire instalment, and he's writing his pants off.

I agree that most inventors pursue their art for the love of inventing itself. But if you spend your life savings on your first invention and then you don't have a way to make that invention pay, you won't have any money to make your second invention. Many technology moguls went for broke on their first product. Those that didn't pan out are out of the race. The rest have created virtually every modern computer being used today. Do you think Steve Jobs would have had the capital to invent the iPhone if the first Apple computer had not been patented?

Furthermore, most modern technology cannot be developed by individuals labouring in their basements. When's the last time you heard of someone building an iPhone alone in their basement? Technology requires unimaginably expensive equipment and teams of intelligent designers and engineers to work out the details. The equipment is not affordable to individuals. The teamsters are often approached about a specific project that they may not have thought of on their own and yet would be impossible without them. In a nutshell, this technology would not exist if not for the business model that enables it.

Whether or not all this could happen in a society where raw materials are free, expensive equipment is shared, and collaborations are freely entered because food and shelter are covered... I don't know. But the reality is, we don't live in a society like that. I hate capitalism as much as you do, Thomas, but unfortunately it's the model we have at the moment. Under that system, intellectual property rights are essential to technical innovation. If you make all intellectual products freely available within a capitalist society, the reality is that few people will be able to afford to produce them.

Bottom line, inventing is expensive business. Most inventors need private investment or expensive loans just to get off the ground. If people had to go at it with no way to recover their investment, they would be good for one invention max.
 
Last edited:
since you keep wondering the last two years all my activities I have done without payment. I have painted someone's entire house, I have writing songs, I have shoveled 5 neighbors driveway for two winters. I have fixed and least 40 computer problems of friends.and when they ask what doI owe you. I say "what do you mean?" if they continue to push their funny paper on me I say politely no I'm thanks I'm a communist If they buy me a bottle of wine I return in no I'm we are no longer in the barter system. Things sometimes get ugly because I don't accept there funny paper bullshit. keep your fucking M&MS I not going to shit my pants!

So how do you eat? Pay rent? Bus fare?

It's an extremely privileged position to have time, energy, and resources to spend two years exclusively volunteering. Either you're independently wealthy, or you have some type of paid employment that you're not mentioning. Either way, it's impossible to live somewhere that has houses to paint, driveways to shovel, and computers to fix, and yet no rent, grocery bills, or travel costs...
 

Brainiachick

Active Member
Something I didn't see mentioned is that intellectual property rights are required in order to allow the producer to create more intellect.

It's not simply "you have to make a living somehow." Inventing takes time and money. Prototypes are not free. Raw materials must be purchased, and most inventions involve many failures that are not only costly, but effectively useless.

Time spent inventing is not spent working at a job receiving pay. Likewise for creating art, music, or literature. If authors didn't receive royalties for their books, they would have to work 9-5's. That would leave most of them with too little time and energy for serious writing. That would make me sad, because I already have to wait so long for the next Song of Ice and Fire instalment, and he's writing his pants off.

I agree that most inventors pursue their art for the love of inventing itself. But if you spend your life savings on your first invention and then you don't have a way to make that invention pay, you won't have any money to make your second invention. Many technology moguls went for broke on their first product. Those that didn't pan out are out of the race. The rest have created virtually every modern computer being used today. Do you think Steve Jobs would have had the capital to invent the iPhone if the first Apple computer had not been patented?

Furthermore, most modern technology cannot be developed by individuals labouring in their basements. When's the last time you heard of someone building an iPhone alone in their basement? Technology requires unimaginably expensive equipment and teams of intelligent designers and engineers to work out the details. The equipment is not affordable to individuals. The teamsters are often approached about a specific project that they may not have thought of on their own and yet would be impossible without them. In a nutshell, this technology would not exist if not for the business model that enables it.

Whether or not all this could happen in a society where raw materials are free, expensive equipment is shared, and collaborations are freely entered because food and shelter are covered... I don't know. But the reality is, we don't live in a society like that. I hate capitalism as much as you do, Thomas, but unfortunately it's the model we have at the moment. Under that system, intellectual property rights are essential to technical innovation. If you make all intellectual products freely available within a capitalist society, the reality is that few people will be able to afford to produce them.

Bottom line, inventing is expensive business. Most inventors need private investment or expensive loans just to get off the ground. If people had to go at it with no way to recover their investment, they would be good for one invention max.

This is so eloquently delivered and articulately explained! I completely agree with you.
 

Brainiachick

Active Member
So how do you eat? Pay rent? Bus fare?

It's an extremely privileged position to have time, energy, and resources to spend two years exclusively volunteering. Either you're independently wealthy, or you have some type of paid employment that you're not mentioning. Either way, it's impossible to live somewhere that has houses to paint, driveways to shovel, and computers to fix, and yet no rent, grocery bills, or travel costs...

I love volunteering and nothing gives me more pleasure than to see a poor vulnerable person, who can't afford a lawyer or don't have sufficient knowledge of the law to go pro se or LIP, win their case. As a result, I do a lot of legal advocacy and judiciary work completely free - as a matter of fact - it costs me my personal funds. Yet I am acutely aware of the fact that I have bills to pay etc and I have never ever been given anything for free just because I do massive pro bono legal work for the most vulnerable people in our society - children! So this place, must definitely come with its attendant cost of living which we are not been informed of; and the persons living there surely have sources of income we haven't been apprised of otherwise, it would obviously not be in the real world where you and I live and have to pay for sustenance with money! I have no idea why it brings to me flashes of some fantasy land far far away, where everything is free.
 

anna wallwork

New Member
Please allow me to congratulate all of you on your clearly-expressed arguments, and your courtesy toward each other, no matter how much your opinions diverge. A refreshing change from many on-line discusions which start with promise, and then degenerate into irrelevance and finally into an exchange of obscenities.
Thanks.
 

Grieves

Senior Member
A pertinent development on this subject would be the U.S.-led Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement, an international trade agreement to which my own country intends to sign on that covers a broad spectrum of issues. Doctors Without Borders (MSF as they're commonly referred too) points out that the trade agreement stands to effect the generic medicine industry, an industry they depend on to provide affordable medications, in an extremely negative way, in part by allowing patents on medications to extend beyond 20 years, and allowing existing medications to renew their patents for an additional 20 years +. There's also mention in the agreement of making surgical techniques open to patent, which is somewhat mind-blowing. That suggests that if a doctor developed a life-saving technique and made the decision to patent it, another doctor who learned the technique couldn't save a life with it without paying a fee/violating patent-law.
If interested in signing a petition against the TPP, Canadians can do so here. http://www.msf.ca/tpp/
 
Last edited:
Top