|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
On February 29 2016 07:46 IgnE wrote:Show nested quote +On February 29 2016 02:57 oneofthem wrote:On February 29 2016 02:19 IgnE wrote:
the purveyor of world currency has the luxury of having open "consumer" markets doesnt it? and gatt and its progeny exist so that its investor class has access to any productive markets it needs to realize return here or elsewhere.
seems like you are using a narrow definition of "free trade" to make arguments here. lets abolish IP protections and see what happens. the Us is effectively operating a "global" US regime wherein other countries have to play by the US rules with regard to IP, capital restrictions, financing regulations, and the rest but don't have the privileges accorded to a US state, operating as resource centers and cheap labor for the home market. not sure why you'd see ip as the problem. part of development of higher value production is ip protection. middle income trap countries would do well to have more ip protection currency war stuff would just give other currencies the advantage. free trade as labor arbitrage by u.s. firms is the only thing i see as a legit argument here and it is indeed a serious if not fundamental problem but this is basically inevitable anyway given the economy of scale involved. allowing global scale economic organixation leads to a lot of inequality but it is overall more efficient. you would want the redistribution and taxation to keep up along with human development of those left behind. IP is offensive in principle (owning ideas) and antidemocratic in practice (despite what airhead artists like taylor swift might say). Freeing up ideas frees up people to put those ideas to productive use. The best way of alleviating poverty would be to put everything on the internet, make it all free, and then distribute it to every mind on the globe. IP functions today as a massive rent extraction tool for the most developed economies (read: ours and our vassal states), both through overt extraction mechanisms and through limiting development. defense is necessary soemtimes just to keep the fruit of your labor. in the very simple case of no ip there is absolutely no reason to do r&d and overall it will create a culture of low value mimicking or gaining market power through noncompetitive means. it's very important for a developing economy to establish some ip not to serve overseas ip holders but to encourage domestic innovation and higher value creativity.
|
where are the case studies on developing economies with vibrant IP holdings? there aren't any. you know all that wishful thinking you accuse others of?
"absolutely no reason to do r&d" line of thought is vastly overrated
|
What's the motivation for r&d if you can milk old inventions for decades?
|
On February 29 2016 08:37 Nyxisto wrote:
What's the motivation for r&d if you can milk old inventions for decades?
the joy of research and tinkering....
the proudness from inventions...
|
To gain an advantage over your competitors and make more money
|
well sure I agree. The question was actually directed at oneofthem who claimed that without ip protection there would be no incentive. This goes obviously both ways. If your money is secure because of IP protection there is no incentive either.
|
When is Mickey Mouse entering the public domain?
|
On February 29 2016 09:12 IgnE wrote:
When is Mickey Mouse entering the public domain?
Never, they keep getting the law extended specifically for Disney. They need to rewrite that law to allow things to enter to public domain if abandoned or not used by the copyright holder. Right now, they just keep pushing it out based Disney properties.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
On February 29 2016 08:35 IgnE wrote:
where are the case studies on developing economies with vibrant IP holdings? there aren't any. you know all that wishful thinking you accuse others of?
"absolutely no reason to do r&d" line of thought is vastly overrated
uh what is the point of this? the deficiency in r&d is the problem, an ip culture will help with that. some places do license ip and then do derivative to-market research, but that is also contingent on having respect for ip.
innovation around ip is not simply about developing the first idea, there are surrounding industries, and you can't really be attracting that work without an environment of ip protection. so in a developing economy you need to have some ip protection for some industries to locate to your place, and then you can develop around that base and get neat technological diffusion benefit.
or you just steal stuff and hand them to your SOEs but that game isn't going to last.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
On February 29 2016 08:37 Nyxisto wrote:
What's the motivation for r&d if you can milk old inventions for decades?
did i say ip should be extended in perpetuity? if no then learn to read
|
On February 29 2016 07:46 IgnE wrote:Show nested quote +On February 29 2016 02:57 oneofthem wrote:On February 29 2016 02:19 IgnE wrote:
the purveyor of world currency has the luxury of having open "consumer" markets doesnt it? and gatt and its progeny exist so that its investor class has access to any productive markets it needs to realize return here or elsewhere.
seems like you are using a narrow definition of "free trade" to make arguments here. lets abolish IP protections and see what happens. the Us is effectively operating a "global" US regime wherein other countries have to play by the US rules with regard to IP, capital restrictions, financing regulations, and the rest but don't have the privileges accorded to a US state, operating as resource centers and cheap labor for the home market. not sure why you'd see ip as the problem. part of development of higher value production is ip protection. middle income trap countries would do well to have more ip protection currency war stuff would just give other currencies the advantage. free trade as labor arbitrage by u.s. firms is the only thing i see as a legit argument here and it is indeed a serious if not fundamental problem but this is basically inevitable anyway given the economy of scale involved. allowing global scale economic organixation leads to a lot of inequality but it is overall more efficient. you would want the redistribution and taxation to keep up along with human development of those left behind. IP is offensive in principle (owning ideas) and antidemocratic in practice (despite what airhead artists like taylor swift might say). Freeing up ideas frees up people to put those ideas to productive use. The best way of alleviating poverty would be to put everything on the internet, make it all free, and then distribute it to every mind on the globe. IP functions today as a massive rent extraction tool for the most developed economies (read: ours and our vassal states), both through overt extraction mechanisms and through limiting development.
You couldn't be more wrong. Taylor Swift may be an airhead, but she´s right on copyright protection. Lets take books, which is more obvious than music. The main cost in books is in the author sitting down and writing out his ideas: it is an act of creativity, honed through months, years or decades of hard work. It then goes back and forth to the editor(s) a couple of time before printing and distribution. The printing, distribution (and advertising) are only a very brief part of this process, yet without copyright for the author, they are the ONLY part that matters. Now copyright lasts far too long, imho, but allowing the author a monopoly on this work means the book gets to be written at all. What would be the point of writing and publishing if some other publisher could come along and copy the exact work for a fraction of the price (because they don't have to pay the author for that work)... or it gets published (legally) online a day after it is in the bookstore. Why would GRRM ever spend years writing a book (yeah, I know, authors are authors because they love writing and the creative process itself, but being able to make a living off it is sure to be a great drive... I know as a scientist that I love the process, but would probably give it up if I couldn't earn a living with it).
Next up, patents: while there may be lots of things wrong with the current patent system, there is nothing wrong with the idea. Basically, it's the same as above, but for technology. Sure, huge multinationals are less sympathetic than authors, but they pump vast amounts of money into R&D in order to stay ahead of the curve. What would be the incentive for Samsung to create better batteries if the minute they did so, Apple would be the first to have them in their phones without paying Samsung anything at all. Or what incentive would Pfizer have to work on cancer drugs if GSK would be able to sell this same drug without the R&D?
What would probably happen is that progress would be insular. Samsung would still make that battery, but instead of patenting it, would obfuscate that technology and keep its working secret. The same for Pfizer's anti-cancer drug (think Coca Cola recipe if you want a famous example of a current successful trade secret). While competitors might be able to figure it out, it will take significant investments, meaning actual progress is slower. And yes, it's ridiculous that you can patent parts of a naturally occurring genome, or "slide to unlock", but this is not something wrong with patents, but with the US patent system. However, the lack of rigorous control over what gets patented also means US patents are one of the fastest in the world. It takes 18 months from registering to granting (or not). In Europe it takes 5 years. In Brazil as well (and often longer). In many technologies, 5 years is pointless; so there's something to be said for the US system too.
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
|
A coalition of more than 400 companies is openly opposing a Georgia “religious liberty” bill that is rapidly heading toward passage, with at least one major company already leaving the state over the proposal.
The proposed law would allow both individuals and organizations to refuse to conduct business with or otherwise discriminate against anyone whose marriage they find counters their religious beliefs. It also protects individuals from existing nondiscrimination laws in Atlanta and elsewhere.
A similar bill was dismissed last year, but the speed at which this year’s version, the “First Amendment Defense Act” (FADA), is moving has raised serious concerns among state lawmakers, business owners, the faith community and activists.
The bill passed both the House and, in a different form, the Senate this month. The most recent version bars the government from taking “adverse action” against a person or faith-based organization that “believes, speaks, or acts in accordance” with the religious belief that “marriage should only be between a man and a woman”.
Telecom startup 373k announced it would to relocate from Decatur, Georgia, to Nevada immediately after the Georgia senate voted in favor of the measure last week.
Source
|
oh wow. lol. are we moving back in time?
|
On February 29 2016 10:39 oneofthem wrote:Show nested quote +On February 29 2016 08:35 IgnE wrote:
where are the case studies on developing economies with vibrant IP holdings? there aren't any. you know all that wishful thinking you accuse others of?
"absolutely no reason to do r&d" line of thought is vastly overrated uh what is the point of this? the deficiency in r&d is the problem, an ip culture will help with that. some places do license ip and then do derivative to-market research, but that is also contingent on having respect for ip. innovation around ip is not simply about developing the first idea, there are surrounding industries, and you can't really be attracting that work without an environment of ip protection. so in a developing economy you need to have some ip protection for some industries to locate to your place, and then you can develop around that base and get neat technological diffusion benefit. or you just steal stuff and hand them to your SOEs but that game isn't going to last.
What is the point of what? What would benefit developing economies more: to have complete access to current technology and human thought or to try and outcompete developed economies in R&D? A deficiency in R&D is not the problem. We don't need more iphones. Especially not some Thaiphone that competes with the iphone and has factories in the DRC and a corporate headquarters in Ireland.
On February 29 2016 10:53 Acrofales wrote:Show nested quote +On February 29 2016 07:46 IgnE wrote:On February 29 2016 02:57 oneofthem wrote:On February 29 2016 02:19 IgnE wrote:
the purveyor of world currency has the luxury of having open "consumer" markets doesnt it? and gatt and its progeny exist so that its investor class has access to any productive markets it needs to realize return here or elsewhere.
seems like you are using a narrow definition of "free trade" to make arguments here. lets abolish IP protections and see what happens. the Us is effectively operating a "global" US regime wherein other countries have to play by the US rules with regard to IP, capital restrictions, financing regulations, and the rest but don't have the privileges accorded to a US state, operating as resource centers and cheap labor for the home market. not sure why you'd see ip as the problem. part of development of higher value production is ip protection. middle income trap countries would do well to have more ip protection currency war stuff would just give other currencies the advantage. free trade as labor arbitrage by u.s. firms is the only thing i see as a legit argument here and it is indeed a serious if not fundamental problem but this is basically inevitable anyway given the economy of scale involved. allowing global scale economic organixation leads to a lot of inequality but it is overall more efficient. you would want the redistribution and taxation to keep up along with human development of those left behind. IP is offensive in principle (owning ideas) and antidemocratic in practice (despite what airhead artists like taylor swift might say). Freeing up ideas frees up people to put those ideas to productive use. The best way of alleviating poverty would be to put everything on the internet, make it all free, and then distribute it to every mind on the globe. IP functions today as a massive rent extraction tool for the most developed economies (read: ours and our vassal states), both through overt extraction mechanisms and through limiting development. You couldn't be more wrong. Taylor Swift may be an airhead, but she´s right on copyright protection. Lets take books, which is more obvious than music. The main cost in books is in the author sitting down and writing out his ideas: it is an act of creativity, honed through months, years or decades of hard work. It then goes back and forth to the editor(s) a couple of time before printing and distribution. The printing, distribution (and advertising) are only a very brief part of this process, yet without copyright for the author, they are the ONLY part that matters. Now copyright lasts far too long, imho, but allowing the author a monopoly on this work means the book gets to be written at all. What would be the point of writing and publishing if some other publisher could come along and copy the exact work for a fraction of the price (because they don't have to pay the author for that work)... or it gets published (legally) online a day after it is in the bookstore. Why would GRRM ever spend years writing a book (yeah, I know, authors are authors because they love writing and the creative process itself, but being able to make a living off it is sure to be a great drive... I know as a scientist that I love the process, but would probably give it up if I couldn't earn a living with it). Next up, patents: while there may be lots of things wrong with the current patent system, there is nothing wrong with the idea. Basically, it's the same as above, but for technology. Sure, huge multinationals are less sympathetic than authors, but they pump vast amounts of money into R&D in order to stay ahead of the curve. What would be the incentive for Samsung to create better batteries if the minute they did so, Apple would be the first to have them in their phones without paying Samsung anything at all. Or what incentive would Pfizer have to work on cancer drugs if GSK would be able to sell this same drug without the R&D? What would probably happen is that progress would be insular. Samsung would still make that battery, but instead of patenting it, would obfuscate that technology and keep its working secret. The same for Pfizer's anti-cancer drug (think Coca Cola recipe if you want a famous example of a current successful trade secret). While competitors might be able to figure it out, it will take significant investments, meaning actual progress is slower. And yes, it's ridiculous that you can patent parts of a naturally occurring genome, or "slide to unlock", but this is not something wrong with patents, but with the US patent system. However, the lack of rigorous control over what gets patented also means US patents are one of the fastest in the world. It takes 18 months from registering to granting (or not). In Europe it takes 5 years. In Brazil as well (and often longer). In many technologies, 5 years is pointless; so there's something to be said for the US system too.
Yeah that's the story people tell about it but it's not true. Authors write because they feel compelled to write, not because they view it as the best path to riches. You admit as much. The only reason this argument seems to ring true is because we are constantly inundated with stories featuring the "starving artist" archetype. We would have more and better art in the world if we only required some basic rights in the bundle of copyright, like attribution, and moved toward a guaranteed income hybridized with donation or patronage models. A move toward shorter working days would also help.
As for your comments on patents you are just flatly wrong on some points (the vast majority of patents take far longer than 18 months from application to grant) and have picked odd examples for others (phones are a particularly bad example for "innovation" because they are closed by design and so the software operating on them is restricted to what the particular company decides they want on their phones; if phones were open source you'd have an endless supply of "free innovation" that would probably be better in many cases than the proprietary software we are stuck with).
|
Considering what Hillary has done so far to try to rig the nomination I don't think it would be a wise bet. I'll bet she doesn't win the presidency though.
|
On February 29 2016 14:04 GreenHorizons wrote:
Considering what Hillary has done so far to try to rig the nomination I don't think it would be a wise bet. I'll bet she doesn't win the presidency though.
What has she done to rig the nomination?
|
As much as people say a bernie trump election would be crazy I think a hillary trump would be more of a crap shoot. It doesn't really matter if she wins her rigging the nomination will just be yet another bengazi.
|
On February 29 2016 14:14 kwizach wrote:Show nested quote +On February 29 2016 14:04 GreenHorizons wrote:
Considering what Hillary has done so far to try to rig the nomination I don't think it would be a wise bet. I'll bet she doesn't win the presidency though. What has she done to rig the nomination?
Seriously? Are you refuting she has?
On February 29 2016 14:18 Sermokala wrote:
As much as people say a bernie trump election would be crazy I think a hillary trump would be more of a crap shoot. It doesn't really matter if she wins her rigging the nomination will just be yet another bengazi.
Trump would make her rage/cry without a doubt. Call her marriage a political sham and just rip her to shreds.
|
I'm exceeded the recommended daily intake of salt so much that I'm at risk of suffering kidney failure at this point.
GH, let me put it this way: from the start is was a real uphill battle for Bernie, like climbing a mountain. If you fail or its hard, you don't blame the mountain for being too tall or too windy or whatever. Yes the DNC pulled some shit, but Hillary is an incredibly qualified candidate. It took Barack Obama to beat her, and he's the second most gifted politician in recent history after Bill Clinton, and he had a knack for organizing.
Actually, this is kind of a funny story-- back when I was a junior in college, I ran for VP in student government. I'd never been involved before, but basically I felt they'd been doing an ass job of managing finances, student organizations and everything else. A decent number of people shared that view. I figured that as an outsider I could attract some support, and I wasn't a complete unknown on campus-- involved in a couple pretty big orgs. I worked up a platform of reforms, got a ton of friends across campus to campaign for me, spammed all across social media and went door to door for two weeks. My alma mater is weird and we have basically 2 campuses-- one has about 500 students who are all freshmen/sophomore and they basically transfer to main campus after 2 years. It's an hour away, and I spent 2 days campaigning there (won the shit out of them b/c I was the only one who bothered visiting).
We had a debate which I crushed, but the newspaper characterized me as some guy new to the scene with no experience despite me knowing the student government regs better than the other two guys running. They also endorsed the eventual winner, who was VP ops or something (not me). I lost like 70-30, though I did get a shoutout from the winner about bringing attention to the messed up finances.
tl;dr Change is hard.
EDIT: if you think Trump can get under Hillary's skin, it just shows how little you know about her.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
