|
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. |
On September 22 2016 02:45 raga4ka wrote:Show nested quote +On September 22 2016 01:41 KwarK wrote:On September 22 2016 01:37 a_flayer wrote:On September 22 2016 01:36 KwarK wrote:On September 22 2016 01:31 a_flayer wrote:On September 22 2016 01:27 KwarK wrote:On September 22 2016 01:19 a_flayer wrote:On September 22 2016 01:02 LegalLord wrote:On September 22 2016 00:42 Gorsameth wrote:On September 22 2016 00:40 Biff The Understudy wrote:
[quote]
If Trump really dissolved NATO (he won't anyway), the EU would have to finally get a coordinated army. The only reason it doesn't exist already is NATO.
All the european armies put together would be easily the second force in the world. Europe has let them armies slide a lot in the last few decades. I would doubt that 2nd place at this point. Especially considering the level of cooperation required. But if the need arose (such as from a disbanded NATO) they have the economy and supply to quickly catch up in equipment (soldiers is a different problem). Look at the current resistance to a EU Army to see why it's not as simple as it would be for a single nation-state to just organize an army and to provide the infrastructure to make it happen. Besides, the end result would basically be replacing US (semi-)occupation with German (semi-)occupation. The strongest nation in the union will exert a disproportionate influence. And I'm sure plenty of countries could be less thrilled with the prospect of that outcome. I'm fairly certain it would be the same as it is now, except without America, and I never see any American soldiers now. Germany "occupying" Europe is a joke. France can pretty much match them in numbers. Every state would just have their own army, but they'd be coordinated together if the unthinkable should happen. And I really don't think there will be more wars in or around Europe, although I suppose things can definitely change over the next 25-50 years. At some point we're going to run out of oil. I imagine that's what America has been preparing for since they took over the Middle East after WW2. You know, in Civ5, when you have a defensive military alliance with another civilization, and you proceed to declare war on a 3rd party without going through your allied civ, the alliance is dissolved. I know that life isn't the same as Civ5, but I'd still like to uphold that rule in this case. Fucking cunts doing whatever they please on the world stage without repercussions. I don't want to condone it anymore by staying in a military alliance with these people who think that's a good idea. I thought it would be different when Obama got elected, but I suppose I was naive, and now there's Hillary and Trump on the horizon. Enough is enough, its time to move on. The United States is the primary force behind the peace and prosperity which is keeping life so awesome for the western world. European interests and American interests are naturally aligned to keep this good thing going. Disagreements about shit like Iraq is insignificant compared to agreements like upholding the rights of international investors, guaranteeing the freedom of the oceans and creating a system for the protection of intellectual property, not to mention preventing any serious war before it starts. Getting mad at the United States is like being mad at your parents for not letting you stay out late when you still get free room and board. Sure, you're pissed off but you probably also should have a think about what it'd feel like to be homeless and maybe get some perspective. The world is great for us but that doesn't mean that it was always going to be great or that it always would be great, it didn't happen by accident. The "rights of international investors" are troublesome to me. The far overreaching concept of "intellectual property" is also one where I have significant disagreements with the US. Do you not like the fact that your labour is massively overvalued compared to comparable effort expended on the other side of the globe? I think it's pretty fucking sweet that I can sit here and post on teamliquid while earning hundreds of times what people no less smart or capable than myself do in Bangladesh while they make shit for me. We've got a system set up where we extract resources from half the world and consume them in the other half and you were born in the right half. Don't fuck with that. ...You are very clearly laying out exactly what I think is wrong with the world at large in that respect. So no, I do not like it, and I will do my very best to fuck with it. Well at least your position makes sense then. There is no problem with wanting an end to US global hegemony if you also want an end to the peace, stability and prosperity that comes with it. My mistake was assuming you naively wanted an end to the global hegemony while keeping all of the benefits. Carry on. People in most countries are just happy to be alive, without war. While we here are arguing how you have to work more for a living, while turning a blind eye for every innocent human dying for "our" convenience. Afganistan, Yugoslavia, Lybia, Iraq, and Syria and probably some other countries as well that I forgot, tell them how US brings peace, stability and prosperity. I personally don't mind NATO if it's used to protect our Sovereignty, but right now it's just an instrument to demolish and steal from weak countries, just so the wealthy can become wealthier. It's an offensive alliance, always has been.
that's pretty clearly nonsense. it's clearly not an offensive alliance, as they don't inherently or necessarily coordinate in such things; it's also not for stealing, as they spend far more than they gain from those places.
So I assume you're one of those high-bias people misattributing outcomes, and trying to blame some big bad for the things that happen in the world.
|
United States43746 Posts
On September 22 2016 02:45 raga4ka wrote:Show nested quote +On September 22 2016 01:41 KwarK wrote:On September 22 2016 01:37 a_flayer wrote:On September 22 2016 01:36 KwarK wrote:On September 22 2016 01:31 a_flayer wrote:On September 22 2016 01:27 KwarK wrote:On September 22 2016 01:19 a_flayer wrote:On September 22 2016 01:02 LegalLord wrote:On September 22 2016 00:42 Gorsameth wrote:On September 22 2016 00:40 Biff The Understudy wrote:
[quote]
If Trump really dissolved NATO (he won't anyway), the EU would have to finally get a coordinated army. The only reason it doesn't exist already is NATO.
All the european armies put together would be easily the second force in the world. Europe has let them armies slide a lot in the last few decades. I would doubt that 2nd place at this point. Especially considering the level of cooperation required. But if the need arose (such as from a disbanded NATO) they have the economy and supply to quickly catch up in equipment (soldiers is a different problem). Look at the current resistance to a EU Army to see why it's not as simple as it would be for a single nation-state to just organize an army and to provide the infrastructure to make it happen. Besides, the end result would basically be replacing US (semi-)occupation with German (semi-)occupation. The strongest nation in the union will exert a disproportionate influence. And I'm sure plenty of countries could be less thrilled with the prospect of that outcome. I'm fairly certain it would be the same as it is now, except without America, and I never see any American soldiers now. Germany "occupying" Europe is a joke. France can pretty much match them in numbers. Every state would just have their own army, but they'd be coordinated together if the unthinkable should happen. And I really don't think there will be more wars in or around Europe, although I suppose things can definitely change over the next 25-50 years. At some point we're going to run out of oil. I imagine that's what America has been preparing for since they took over the Middle East after WW2. You know, in Civ5, when you have a defensive military alliance with another civilization, and you proceed to declare war on a 3rd party without going through your allied civ, the alliance is dissolved. I know that life isn't the same as Civ5, but I'd still like to uphold that rule in this case. Fucking cunts doing whatever they please on the world stage without repercussions. I don't want to condone it anymore by staying in a military alliance with these people who think that's a good idea. I thought it would be different when Obama got elected, but I suppose I was naive, and now there's Hillary and Trump on the horizon. Enough is enough, its time to move on. The United States is the primary force behind the peace and prosperity which is keeping life so awesome for the western world. European interests and American interests are naturally aligned to keep this good thing going. Disagreements about shit like Iraq is insignificant compared to agreements like upholding the rights of international investors, guaranteeing the freedom of the oceans and creating a system for the protection of intellectual property, not to mention preventing any serious war before it starts. Getting mad at the United States is like being mad at your parents for not letting you stay out late when you still get free room and board. Sure, you're pissed off but you probably also should have a think about what it'd feel like to be homeless and maybe get some perspective. The world is great for us but that doesn't mean that it was always going to be great or that it always would be great, it didn't happen by accident. The "rights of international investors" are troublesome to me. The far overreaching concept of "intellectual property" is also one where I have significant disagreements with the US. Do you not like the fact that your labour is massively overvalued compared to comparable effort expended on the other side of the globe? I think it's pretty fucking sweet that I can sit here and post on teamliquid while earning hundreds of times what people no less smart or capable than myself do in Bangladesh while they make shit for me. We've got a system set up where we extract resources from half the world and consume them in the other half and you were born in the right half. Don't fuck with that. ...You are very clearly laying out exactly what I think is wrong with the world at large in that respect. So no, I do not like it, and I will do my very best to fuck with it. Well at least your position makes sense then. There is no problem with wanting an end to US global hegemony if you also want an end to the peace, stability and prosperity that comes with it. My mistake was assuming you naively wanted an end to the global hegemony while keeping all of the benefits. Carry on. People in most countries are just happy to be alive, without war. While we here are arguing how you have to work more for a living, while turning a blind eye for every innocent human dying for "our" convenience. Afganistan, Yugoslavia, Lybia, Iraq, and Syria and probably some other countries as well that I forgot, tell them how US brings peace, stability and prosperity. I personally don't mind NATO if it's used to protect our Sovereignty, but right now it's just an instrument to demolish and steal from weak countries, just so the wealthy can become wealthier. It's an offensive alliance, always has been.
Which of those nations were great before NATO came along? Half of those don't even have anything to do with NATO. There will always be small exceptions due to human nature but if you think the war and suffering today is anything like that which would exist were it not for the American superpower, well, I've got a history book to sell you. Afghanistan is not an example that disproves global peace and prosperity, a war between the United States and China would be. Expecting the existence of NATO to end all strife everywhere is an unreasonable benchmark. Hell, two of those, Syria and Libya, are essentially demographic in nature, a population boom a few decades ago created a big generation of bored and apathetic young men which destabilized the region in the Arab Spring. The only way you can link that to NATO is arguing that there was too much peace and prosperity and it created a surplus.
|
Is it ethical for a cable TV host to be on a presidential campaign? Lewandowski and Hannity have some issues if not.
|
On September 22 2016 02:46 ticklishmusic wrote:Show nested quote +On September 22 2016 02:43 Plansix wrote:
And to this almost all white audience, Trump explains that the black community is the worst shape ever. It's inclear if he is including about before the civil rights movement. Or slavery.
Also the data doesn't back that up. There's a bunch of excited replies about one black guy. Though seriously, I assume that this is a black church because this is outreach to the black community, so where'd all the white people come from?
That one black dude looks like he is saying “What did you bring me to? I thought this was church?”
My bet is that the members of this black churched opted not to attend. And there are reports that Trumps folks tried to keep the press out or to keep him from answering questions.
On NRP this morning they discussed Trump’s new aversion to press conferences and the classic moment during the primary when one of his supporters yelled: “Get the reporters out of here, they are writing down everything he is saying.” Classic.
|
On September 22 2016 02:50 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On September 22 2016 02:45 raga4ka wrote:On September 22 2016 01:41 KwarK wrote:On September 22 2016 01:37 a_flayer wrote:On September 22 2016 01:36 KwarK wrote:On September 22 2016 01:31 a_flayer wrote:On September 22 2016 01:27 KwarK wrote:On September 22 2016 01:19 a_flayer wrote:On September 22 2016 01:02 LegalLord wrote:On September 22 2016 00:42 Gorsameth wrote:
[quote]
Europe has let them armies slide a lot in the last few decades. I would doubt that 2nd place at this point. Especially considering the level of cooperation required.
But if the need arose (such as from a disbanded NATO) they have the economy and supply to quickly catch up in equipment (soldiers is a different problem). Look at the current resistance to a EU Army to see why it's not as simple as it would be for a single nation-state to just organize an army and to provide the infrastructure to make it happen. Besides, the end result would basically be replacing US (semi-)occupation with German (semi-)occupation. The strongest nation in the union will exert a disproportionate influence. And I'm sure plenty of countries could be less thrilled with the prospect of that outcome. I'm fairly certain it would be the same as it is now, except without America, and I never see any American soldiers now. Germany "occupying" Europe is a joke. France can pretty much match them in numbers. Every state would just have their own army, but they'd be coordinated together if the unthinkable should happen. And I really don't think there will be more wars in or around Europe, although I suppose things can definitely change over the next 25-50 years. At some point we're going to run out of oil. I imagine that's what America has been preparing for since they took over the Middle East after WW2. You know, in Civ5, when you have a defensive military alliance with another civilization, and you proceed to declare war on a 3rd party without going through your allied civ, the alliance is dissolved. I know that life isn't the same as Civ5, but I'd still like to uphold that rule in this case. Fucking cunts doing whatever they please on the world stage without repercussions. I don't want to condone it anymore by staying in a military alliance with these people who think that's a good idea. I thought it would be different when Obama got elected, but I suppose I was naive, and now there's Hillary and Trump on the horizon. Enough is enough, its time to move on. The United States is the primary force behind the peace and prosperity which is keeping life so awesome for the western world. European interests and American interests are naturally aligned to keep this good thing going. Disagreements about shit like Iraq is insignificant compared to agreements like upholding the rights of international investors, guaranteeing the freedom of the oceans and creating a system for the protection of intellectual property, not to mention preventing any serious war before it starts. Getting mad at the United States is like being mad at your parents for not letting you stay out late when you still get free room and board. Sure, you're pissed off but you probably also should have a think about what it'd feel like to be homeless and maybe get some perspective. The world is great for us but that doesn't mean that it was always going to be great or that it always would be great, it didn't happen by accident. The "rights of international investors" are troublesome to me. The far overreaching concept of "intellectual property" is also one where I have significant disagreements with the US. Do you not like the fact that your labour is massively overvalued compared to comparable effort expended on the other side of the globe? I think it's pretty fucking sweet that I can sit here and post on teamliquid while earning hundreds of times what people no less smart or capable than myself do in Bangladesh while they make shit for me. We've got a system set up where we extract resources from half the world and consume them in the other half and you were born in the right half. Don't fuck with that. ...You are very clearly laying out exactly what I think is wrong with the world at large in that respect. So no, I do not like it, and I will do my very best to fuck with it. Well at least your position makes sense then. There is no problem with wanting an end to US global hegemony if you also want an end to the peace, stability and prosperity that comes with it. My mistake was assuming you naively wanted an end to the global hegemony while keeping all of the benefits. Carry on. People in most countries are just happy to be alive, without war. While we here are arguing how you have to work more for a living, while turning a blind eye for every innocent human dying for "our" convenience. Afganistan, Yugoslavia, Lybia, Iraq, and Syria and probably some other countries as well that I forgot, tell them how US brings peace, stability and prosperity. I personally don't mind NATO if it's used to protect our Sovereignty, but right now it's just an instrument to demolish and steal from weak countries, just so the wealthy can become wealthier. It's an offensive alliance, always has been. Which of those nations were great before NATO came along? Half of those don't even have anything to do with NATO. There will always be small exceptions due to human nature but if you think the war and suffering today is anything like that which would exist were it not for the American superpower, well, I've got a history book to sell you. Afghanistan is not an example that disproves global peace and prosperity, a war between the United States and China would be. Expecting the existence of NATO to end all strife everywhere is an unreasonable benchmark. Hell, two of those, Syria and Libya, are essentially demographic in nature, a population boom a few decades ago created a big generation of bored and apathetic young men which destabilized the region in the Arab Spring. The only way you can link that to NATO is arguing that there was too much peace and prosperity and it created a surplus.
Also wasn't there a horrible draught that didn't help and left them underfed and angry? Gee, I wonder what could possibly be the cause of that.
|
On September 22 2016 02:42 IgnE wrote:Show nested quote +On September 22 2016 02:23 Nyxisto wrote:On September 22 2016 02:16 IgnE wrote:
Intellectual property regimes favored by the US (here meaning the current dominant lobbying groups) only serve to reduce the production of knowledge through knowledge by charging monopoly or near-monopoly rents on immaterial goods that cost essentially nothing to reproduce and make available. Access is everything, and the fenced walls that the American imperialists want to erect are both immoral (because they perpetuate oppressive monopoly relations) and self-destructive (because they inhibit and destroy the potential value of the externalities being created by networked brains in cooperation and being captured by the new form of capitalism). Many of the capitalists know this (i.e. google). And yet we still have people trotting out prosy Reaganite shibboleths about unending 5% growth. You're contradicting yourself here. If it's true that intellectual property schemes are destructive, than the US shouldn't be on the forefront of technological innovation and should have long been surpassed by nations that do not run such rigorous intellectual property schemes. Either virtual goods function similar to classical goods and then you can make the case that the US is exploiting their position, or they don't, but in that case the US wouldn't be where it is in the first place. I'm all for open access when possible but intellectual property protection has its place in value creation. No I'm not. The value produced via externalities in knowledge production is orders of magnitude greater than the direct value of the immaterial good. By trying to capture value only through direct consumer transactions and restricting access to knowledge goods you are able to collect a monopoly rent on the primary good but you are killing off the massive value that is generated via the knowledge produced by brains in cooperation with access to said goods. If you prefer, I will use metaphor. Imagine honey as the primary, consumer good. Bee hives are the producers of honey. Bees also create massive value through their pollination activity. That value is external to the production of the primary good, and yet is worth many many times more than the good itself. If you kill off the pollination activity (i.e. you restrict access to knowledge that brains need to produce knowledge through knowledge) you are killing off all of that value.
Yes, but we're not shutting off the knowledge in case of say, patent rights. In fact a patent right forces to disclose knowledge. You can't claim a patent without distributing the knowledge and schematics of your innovation. What we're getting the rent from in our system is the honey, which is the good that is being restricted through say copyright on a piece of music or a monopoly temporarily granted on a drug. The knowledge is all out there. That's what the intellectual property scheme exists for in the first place. So that innovators can share their findings without fearing that their research will not be compensated.
What you're talking about here would be a trade secret. Which is not strongly protected intellectual property, because it can be copied through legitimate means.
If there was no intellectual property everybody would keep everything a trade secret. The only way to hang on to your value would be to hide the innovation behind your good the way Coca Cola hangs on to their recipe. This is what would discourage innovating and sharing of information.
|
On September 22 2016 02:37 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On September 22 2016 02:34 WolfintheSheep wrote:
There's actually been a lot of stagnation of US tech in the last decade and a half because of patent trolling and industry sponsored regulation. Tell that to Moore's Law. By and large tech is still increasing exponentially.
Don't think you know what Moore's Law actually is if you're trying to use it in this context. Yes, the number of transistors on circuits is still increasing fairly steadily, and computer power is growing with that. And...?
It has very little to do with Intellectual Property and everything to do with science...
Plus Moore's Law itself is driven primarily by decreasing production costs and numerous results from University research (though there is non-insignificant contribution from the likes of IBM, HP, etc.).
|
United States43746 Posts
On September 22 2016 02:53 a_flayer wrote:Show nested quote +On September 22 2016 02:50 KwarK wrote:On September 22 2016 02:45 raga4ka wrote:On September 22 2016 01:41 KwarK wrote:On September 22 2016 01:37 a_flayer wrote:On September 22 2016 01:36 KwarK wrote:On September 22 2016 01:31 a_flayer wrote:On September 22 2016 01:27 KwarK wrote:On September 22 2016 01:19 a_flayer wrote:On September 22 2016 01:02 LegalLord wrote:
[quote]
Look at the current resistance to a EU Army to see why it's not as simple as it would be for a single nation-state to just organize an army and to provide the infrastructure to make it happen.
Besides, the end result would basically be replacing US (semi-)occupation with German (semi-)occupation. The strongest nation in the union will exert a disproportionate influence. And I'm sure plenty of countries could be less thrilled with the prospect of that outcome. I'm fairly certain it would be the same as it is now, except without America, and I never see any American soldiers now. Germany "occupying" Europe is a joke. France can pretty much match them in numbers. Every state would just have their own army, but they'd be coordinated together if the unthinkable should happen. And I really don't think there will be more wars in or around Europe, although I suppose things can definitely change over the next 25-50 years. At some point we're going to run out of oil. I imagine that's what America has been preparing for since they took over the Middle East after WW2. You know, in Civ5, when you have a defensive military alliance with another civilization, and you proceed to declare war on a 3rd party without going through your allied civ, the alliance is dissolved. I know that life isn't the same as Civ5, but I'd still like to uphold that rule in this case. Fucking cunts doing whatever they please on the world stage without repercussions. I don't want to condone it anymore by staying in a military alliance with these people who think that's a good idea. I thought it would be different when Obama got elected, but I suppose I was naive, and now there's Hillary and Trump on the horizon. Enough is enough, its time to move on. The United States is the primary force behind the peace and prosperity which is keeping life so awesome for the western world. European interests and American interests are naturally aligned to keep this good thing going. Disagreements about shit like Iraq is insignificant compared to agreements like upholding the rights of international investors, guaranteeing the freedom of the oceans and creating a system for the protection of intellectual property, not to mention preventing any serious war before it starts. Getting mad at the United States is like being mad at your parents for not letting you stay out late when you still get free room and board. Sure, you're pissed off but you probably also should have a think about what it'd feel like to be homeless and maybe get some perspective. The world is great for us but that doesn't mean that it was always going to be great or that it always would be great, it didn't happen by accident. The "rights of international investors" are troublesome to me. The far overreaching concept of "intellectual property" is also one where I have significant disagreements with the US. Do you not like the fact that your labour is massively overvalued compared to comparable effort expended on the other side of the globe? I think it's pretty fucking sweet that I can sit here and post on teamliquid while earning hundreds of times what people no less smart or capable than myself do in Bangladesh while they make shit for me. We've got a system set up where we extract resources from half the world and consume them in the other half and you were born in the right half. Don't fuck with that. ...You are very clearly laying out exactly what I think is wrong with the world at large in that respect. So no, I do not like it, and I will do my very best to fuck with it. Well at least your position makes sense then. There is no problem with wanting an end to US global hegemony if you also want an end to the peace, stability and prosperity that comes with it. My mistake was assuming you naively wanted an end to the global hegemony while keeping all of the benefits. Carry on. People in most countries are just happy to be alive, without war. While we here are arguing how you have to work more for a living, while turning a blind eye for every innocent human dying for "our" convenience. Afganistan, Yugoslavia, Lybia, Iraq, and Syria and probably some other countries as well that I forgot, tell them how US brings peace, stability and prosperity. I personally don't mind NATO if it's used to protect our Sovereignty, but right now it's just an instrument to demolish and steal from weak countries, just so the wealthy can become wealthier. It's an offensive alliance, always has been. Which of those nations were great before NATO came along? Half of those don't even have anything to do with NATO. There will always be small exceptions due to human nature but if you think the war and suffering today is anything like that which would exist were it not for the American superpower, well, I've got a history book to sell you. Afghanistan is not an example that disproves global peace and prosperity, a war between the United States and China would be. Expecting the existence of NATO to end all strife everywhere is an unreasonable benchmark. Hell, two of those, Syria and Libya, are essentially demographic in nature, a population boom a few decades ago created a big generation of bored and apathetic young men which destabilized the region in the Arab Spring. The only way you can link that to NATO is arguing that there was too much peace and prosperity and it created a surplus. Also wasn't there a horrible draught that didn't help and left them underfed and angry? Gee, I wonder what could possibly be the cause of that.
I'm no climate change denier but droughts have always happened and countries that aren't completely fucked up normally don't collapse into civil war. Syria's problems are deeper than climate change. You can't excuse the brutal dictatorship and focus on western capitalism.
|
On September 22 2016 02:54 Nyxisto wrote:Show nested quote +On September 22 2016 02:42 IgnE wrote:On September 22 2016 02:23 Nyxisto wrote:On September 22 2016 02:16 IgnE wrote:
Intellectual property regimes favored by the US (here meaning the current dominant lobbying groups) only serve to reduce the production of knowledge through knowledge by charging monopoly or near-monopoly rents on immaterial goods that cost essentially nothing to reproduce and make available. Access is everything, and the fenced walls that the American imperialists want to erect are both immoral (because they perpetuate oppressive monopoly relations) and self-destructive (because they inhibit and destroy the potential value of the externalities being created by networked brains in cooperation and being captured by the new form of capitalism). Many of the capitalists know this (i.e. google). And yet we still have people trotting out prosy Reaganite shibboleths about unending 5% growth. You're contradicting yourself here. If it's true that intellectual property schemes are destructive, than the US shouldn't be on the forefront of technological innovation and should have long been surpassed by nations that do not run such rigorous intellectual property schemes. Either virtual goods function similar to classical goods and then you can make the case that the US is exploiting their position, or they don't, but in that case the US wouldn't be where it is in the first place. I'm all for open access when possible but intellectual property protection has its place in value creation. No I'm not. The value produced via externalities in knowledge production is orders of magnitude greater than the direct value of the immaterial good. By trying to capture value only through direct consumer transactions and restricting access to knowledge goods you are able to collect a monopoly rent on the primary good but you are killing off the massive value that is generated via the knowledge produced by brains in cooperation with access to said goods. If you prefer, I will use metaphor. Imagine honey as the primary, consumer good. Bee hives are the producers of honey. Bees also create massive value through their pollination activity. That value is external to the production of the primary good, and yet is worth many many times more than the good itself. If you kill off the pollination activity (i.e. you restrict access to knowledge that brains need to produce knowledge through knowledge) you are killing off all of that value. Yes, but we're not shutting off the knowledge in case of say, patent rights. In fact a patent right forces to disclose knowledge. You can't claim a patent without distributing the knowledge and schematics of your innovation. What we're getting the rent from in our system is the honey, which is the good that is being restricted through say copyright on a piece of music or a monopoly temporarily granted on a drug. The knowledge is all out there. That's what the intellectual property scheme exists for in the first place. So that innovators can share their findings without fearing that their research will not be compensated. What you're talking about here would be a trade secret. Which is not strongly protected intellectual property, because it can be copied through legitimate means. If there was no intellectual property everybody would keep everything a trade secret. The only way to hang on to your value would be to hide the innovation behind your good the way Coca Cola hangs on to their recipe. This is what would discourage innovating and sharing of information.
1) patents don't usually disclose very much beyond what the public already knows merely from the good existing in the marketplace.
2)patents restrict innovation by preventing dissemination and use of ideas that incorporate ideas in the patent. look at software and business methods patents
3) copyright on music and software directly impinges upon knowledge production by restricting access and usage. the same arguments against copyright are applicable to the supposed "sharing" of knowledge that you argue patents provide but you kind of conflate the two forms of IP
it doesn't seem like you've read many patents. nor does it seem like you are very well informed about what patent thickets are and how they affect the production of knowledge
|
Sorry but you're conflating different forms of IP here. Pirating videogames or music off the internet isn't going to make you a musician or a game developer. The knowledge to become a producer of goods is already in the public sphere. That's the "pollination" in your example before, and that's where patents come in.
What you want is simply free honey. I mean you can argue in favour of that but don't tell me that eating honey somehow makes me beekeeper. Copyright doesn't infringe on knowledge production the slightest. Copyright guarantees rent on goods.
|
On September 22 2016 03:11 IgnE wrote:Show nested quote +On September 22 2016 02:54 Nyxisto wrote:On September 22 2016 02:42 IgnE wrote:On September 22 2016 02:23 Nyxisto wrote:On September 22 2016 02:16 IgnE wrote:
Intellectual property regimes favored by the US (here meaning the current dominant lobbying groups) only serve to reduce the production of knowledge through knowledge by charging monopoly or near-monopoly rents on immaterial goods that cost essentially nothing to reproduce and make available. Access is everything, and the fenced walls that the American imperialists want to erect are both immoral (because they perpetuate oppressive monopoly relations) and self-destructive (because they inhibit and destroy the potential value of the externalities being created by networked brains in cooperation and being captured by the new form of capitalism). Many of the capitalists know this (i.e. google). And yet we still have people trotting out prosy Reaganite shibboleths about unending 5% growth. You're contradicting yourself here. If it's true that intellectual property schemes are destructive, than the US shouldn't be on the forefront of technological innovation and should have long been surpassed by nations that do not run such rigorous intellectual property schemes. Either virtual goods function similar to classical goods and then you can make the case that the US is exploiting their position, or they don't, but in that case the US wouldn't be where it is in the first place. I'm all for open access when possible but intellectual property protection has its place in value creation. No I'm not. The value produced via externalities in knowledge production is orders of magnitude greater than the direct value of the immaterial good. By trying to capture value only through direct consumer transactions and restricting access to knowledge goods you are able to collect a monopoly rent on the primary good but you are killing off the massive value that is generated via the knowledge produced by brains in cooperation with access to said goods. If you prefer, I will use metaphor. Imagine honey as the primary, consumer good. Bee hives are the producers of honey. Bees also create massive value through their pollination activity. That value is external to the production of the primary good, and yet is worth many many times more than the good itself. If you kill off the pollination activity (i.e. you restrict access to knowledge that brains need to produce knowledge through knowledge) you are killing off all of that value. Yes, but we're not shutting off the knowledge in case of say, patent rights. In fact a patent right forces to disclose knowledge. You can't claim a patent without distributing the knowledge and schematics of your innovation. What we're getting the rent from in our system is the honey, which is the good that is being restricted through say copyright on a piece of music or a monopoly temporarily granted on a drug. The knowledge is all out there. That's what the intellectual property scheme exists for in the first place. So that innovators can share their findings without fearing that their research will not be compensated. What you're talking about here would be a trade secret. Which is not strongly protected intellectual property, because it can be copied through legitimate means. If there was no intellectual property everybody would keep everything a trade secret. The only way to hang on to your value would be to hide the innovation behind your good the way Coca Cola hangs on to their recipe. This is what would discourage innovating and sharing of information. 1) patents don't usually disclose very much beyond what the public already knows merely from the good existing in the marketplace. 2)patents restrict innovation by preventing dissemination and use of ideas that incorporate ideas in the patent. look at software and business methods patents 3) copyright on music and software directly impinges upon knowledge production by restricting access and usage. the same arguments against copyright are applicable to the supposed "sharing" of knowledge that you argue patents provide but you kind of conflate the two forms of IP it doesn't seem like you've read many patents. nor does it seem like you are very well informed about what patent thickets are and how they affect the production of knowledge
The argument that patents are a net loss for innovation is highly suspect. If there was no way to protect an invention or design for a period of time, there would be no reason to spend the resources developing it.
The same with copyrights and music. A band can spend years and a lot of money working an album. If they could not protect it from being copied and resold, there would be zero reason for a record label to pay the band for it. They would have no ability to make money off of their labor
|
On September 22 2016 03:18 Nyxisto wrote:
Sorry but you're conflating different forms of IP here. Pirating videogames or music off the internet isn't going to make you a musician or a game developer. The knowledge to become a producer of goods is already in the public sphere. That's the "pollination" in your example before, and that's where patents come in.
What you want is simply free honey. I mean you can argue in favour of that but don't tell me that eating honey somehow makes me beekeeper
you have an extremely limited grasp of how innovation in software works. music in particular is a really bad example for you to have chosen given the popularity of remixing. maybe you should read anything by larry lessig. or perhaps benkler's the weath of networks.
|
On September 22 2016 03:10 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On September 22 2016 02:53 a_flayer wrote:On September 22 2016 02:50 KwarK wrote:On September 22 2016 02:45 raga4ka wrote:On September 22 2016 01:41 KwarK wrote:On September 22 2016 01:37 a_flayer wrote:On September 22 2016 01:36 KwarK wrote:On September 22 2016 01:31 a_flayer wrote:On September 22 2016 01:27 KwarK wrote:On September 22 2016 01:19 a_flayer wrote:
[quote]
I'm fairly certain it would be the same as it is now, except without America, and I never see any American soldiers now. Germany "occupying" Europe is a joke. France can pretty much match them in numbers. Every state would just have their own army, but they'd be coordinated together if the unthinkable should happen. And I really don't think there will be more wars in or around Europe, although I suppose things can definitely change over the next 25-50 years. At some point we're going to run out of oil. I imagine that's what America has been preparing for since they took over the Middle East after WW2.
You know, in Civ5, when you have a defensive military alliance with another civilization, and you proceed to declare war on a 3rd party without going through your allied civ, the alliance is dissolved. I know that life isn't the same as Civ5, but I'd still like to uphold that rule in this case. Fucking cunts doing whatever they please on the world stage without repercussions. I don't want to condone it anymore by staying in a military alliance with these people who think that's a good idea. I thought it would be different when Obama got elected, but I suppose I was naive, and now there's Hillary and Trump on the horizon. Enough is enough, its time to move on.
The United States is the primary force behind the peace and prosperity which is keeping life so awesome for the western world. European interests and American interests are naturally aligned to keep this good thing going. Disagreements about shit like Iraq is insignificant compared to agreements like upholding the rights of international investors, guaranteeing the freedom of the oceans and creating a system for the protection of intellectual property, not to mention preventing any serious war before it starts. Getting mad at the United States is like being mad at your parents for not letting you stay out late when you still get free room and board. Sure, you're pissed off but you probably also should have a think about what it'd feel like to be homeless and maybe get some perspective. The world is great for us but that doesn't mean that it was always going to be great or that it always would be great, it didn't happen by accident. The "rights of international investors" are troublesome to me. The far overreaching concept of "intellectual property" is also one where I have significant disagreements with the US. Do you not like the fact that your labour is massively overvalued compared to comparable effort expended on the other side of the globe? I think it's pretty fucking sweet that I can sit here and post on teamliquid while earning hundreds of times what people no less smart or capable than myself do in Bangladesh while they make shit for me. We've got a system set up where we extract resources from half the world and consume them in the other half and you were born in the right half. Don't fuck with that. ...You are very clearly laying out exactly what I think is wrong with the world at large in that respect. So no, I do not like it, and I will do my very best to fuck with it. Well at least your position makes sense then. There is no problem with wanting an end to US global hegemony if you also want an end to the peace, stability and prosperity that comes with it. My mistake was assuming you naively wanted an end to the global hegemony while keeping all of the benefits. Carry on. People in most countries are just happy to be alive, without war. While we here are arguing how you have to work more for a living, while turning a blind eye for every innocent human dying for "our" convenience. Afganistan, Yugoslavia, Lybia, Iraq, and Syria and probably some other countries as well that I forgot, tell them how US brings peace, stability and prosperity. I personally don't mind NATO if it's used to protect our Sovereignty, but right now it's just an instrument to demolish and steal from weak countries, just so the wealthy can become wealthier. It's an offensive alliance, always has been. Which of those nations were great before NATO came along? Half of those don't even have anything to do with NATO. There will always be small exceptions due to human nature but if you think the war and suffering today is anything like that which would exist were it not for the American superpower, well, I've got a history book to sell you. Afghanistan is not an example that disproves global peace and prosperity, a war between the United States and China would be. Expecting the existence of NATO to end all strife everywhere is an unreasonable benchmark. Hell, two of those, Syria and Libya, are essentially demographic in nature, a population boom a few decades ago created a big generation of bored and apathetic young men which destabilized the region in the Arab Spring. The only way you can link that to NATO is arguing that there was too much peace and prosperity and it created a surplus. Also wasn't there a horrible draught that didn't help and left them underfed and angry? Gee, I wonder what could possibly be the cause of that. I'm no climate change denier but droughts have always happened and countries that aren't completely fucked up normally don't collapse into civil war. Syria's problems are deeper than climate change. You can't excuse the brutal dictatorship and focus on western capitalism.
I'm not excusing either. It's just that I live in the capitalist west and I'm far too much of a chickenshit to move to Syria to try and do anything about the dictatorship. Also, I spelled drought wrong? Fuck me.
And in regards to patents: software patents are absolute bullshit. It's like patenting a plot idea in a book "well, I had the idea of having the hero meet a girl, nobody else can do it now without paying me even though the book would still have to be written". When it comes to software, the effort lies in the coding and getting the code to work, not the idea. There's patents out there for the most ridiculous shit, such as a digital shopping cart. I mean come on, that's literally just taking the real world and coding software around it. The effort lies in the coding, not the stupidly obvious "idea".
|
On September 22 2016 03:20 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On September 22 2016 03:11 IgnE wrote:On September 22 2016 02:54 Nyxisto wrote:On September 22 2016 02:42 IgnE wrote:On September 22 2016 02:23 Nyxisto wrote:On September 22 2016 02:16 IgnE wrote:
Intellectual property regimes favored by the US (here meaning the current dominant lobbying groups) only serve to reduce the production of knowledge through knowledge by charging monopoly or near-monopoly rents on immaterial goods that cost essentially nothing to reproduce and make available. Access is everything, and the fenced walls that the American imperialists want to erect are both immoral (because they perpetuate oppressive monopoly relations) and self-destructive (because they inhibit and destroy the potential value of the externalities being created by networked brains in cooperation and being captured by the new form of capitalism). Many of the capitalists know this (i.e. google). And yet we still have people trotting out prosy Reaganite shibboleths about unending 5% growth. You're contradicting yourself here. If it's true that intellectual property schemes are destructive, than the US shouldn't be on the forefront of technological innovation and should have long been surpassed by nations that do not run such rigorous intellectual property schemes. Either virtual goods function similar to classical goods and then you can make the case that the US is exploiting their position, or they don't, but in that case the US wouldn't be where it is in the first place. I'm all for open access when possible but intellectual property protection has its place in value creation. No I'm not. The value produced via externalities in knowledge production is orders of magnitude greater than the direct value of the immaterial good. By trying to capture value only through direct consumer transactions and restricting access to knowledge goods you are able to collect a monopoly rent on the primary good but you are killing off the massive value that is generated via the knowledge produced by brains in cooperation with access to said goods. If you prefer, I will use metaphor. Imagine honey as the primary, consumer good. Bee hives are the producers of honey. Bees also create massive value through their pollination activity. That value is external to the production of the primary good, and yet is worth many many times more than the good itself. If you kill off the pollination activity (i.e. you restrict access to knowledge that brains need to produce knowledge through knowledge) you are killing off all of that value. Yes, but we're not shutting off the knowledge in case of say, patent rights. In fact a patent right forces to disclose knowledge. You can't claim a patent without distributing the knowledge and schematics of your innovation. What we're getting the rent from in our system is the honey, which is the good that is being restricted through say copyright on a piece of music or a monopoly temporarily granted on a drug. The knowledge is all out there. That's what the intellectual property scheme exists for in the first place. So that innovators can share their findings without fearing that their research will not be compensated. What you're talking about here would be a trade secret. Which is not strongly protected intellectual property, because it can be copied through legitimate means. If there was no intellectual property everybody would keep everything a trade secret. The only way to hang on to your value would be to hide the innovation behind your good the way Coca Cola hangs on to their recipe. This is what would discourage innovating and sharing of information. 1) patents don't usually disclose very much beyond what the public already knows merely from the good existing in the marketplace. 2)patents restrict innovation by preventing dissemination and use of ideas that incorporate ideas in the patent. look at software and business methods patents 3) copyright on music and software directly impinges upon knowledge production by restricting access and usage. the same arguments against copyright are applicable to the supposed "sharing" of knowledge that you argue patents provide but you kind of conflate the two forms of IP it doesn't seem like you've read many patents. nor does it seem like you are very well informed about what patent thickets are and how they affect the production of knowledge The argument that patents are a net loss for innovation is highly suspect. If there was no way to protect an invention or design for a period of time, there would be no reason to spend the resources developing it. The same with copyrights and music. A band can spend years and a lot of money working an album. If they could not protect it from being copied and resold, there would be zero reason for a record label to pay the band for it. They would have no ability to make money off of their labor
that's completely absurd. people make things all the time without expectation of monetary remuneration. record labels are dead anyway. you are stuck in the 90s, seriously.
|
Members of the Congressional Black Caucus on Friday harshly criticized Donald Trump’s announcement that he now believes President Obama was born in the United States, saying he never apologized for spreading the birther myth and instead sought to falsely blame Hillary Clinton for originating the rumor.
They said Trump either knowingly lied before about doubting Obama’s citizenship or he is knowingly lying now in an attempt to gain votes in November.
“This is a disgusting day. Donald Trump is a disgusting fraud, by any definition,” said CBC Chairman G.K. Butterfield (D-N.C.). “Every American needs to understand that this man is a fraud, he’s an insult to the intellect of the American people. We must defeat him in November.”
[...]
On Friday, Trump sought credit for pursuing the issue because it led to Obama releasing his birth certificate showing he was born in the United States.
Washington Post
|
On September 22 2016 03:22 IgnE wrote:Show nested quote +On September 22 2016 03:20 Plansix wrote:On September 22 2016 03:11 IgnE wrote:On September 22 2016 02:54 Nyxisto wrote:On September 22 2016 02:42 IgnE wrote:On September 22 2016 02:23 Nyxisto wrote:On September 22 2016 02:16 IgnE wrote:
Intellectual property regimes favored by the US (here meaning the current dominant lobbying groups) only serve to reduce the production of knowledge through knowledge by charging monopoly or near-monopoly rents on immaterial goods that cost essentially nothing to reproduce and make available. Access is everything, and the fenced walls that the American imperialists want to erect are both immoral (because they perpetuate oppressive monopoly relations) and self-destructive (because they inhibit and destroy the potential value of the externalities being created by networked brains in cooperation and being captured by the new form of capitalism). Many of the capitalists know this (i.e. google). And yet we still have people trotting out prosy Reaganite shibboleths about unending 5% growth. You're contradicting yourself here. If it's true that intellectual property schemes are destructive, than the US shouldn't be on the forefront of technological innovation and should have long been surpassed by nations that do not run such rigorous intellectual property schemes. Either virtual goods function similar to classical goods and then you can make the case that the US is exploiting their position, or they don't, but in that case the US wouldn't be where it is in the first place. I'm all for open access when possible but intellectual property protection has its place in value creation. No I'm not. The value produced via externalities in knowledge production is orders of magnitude greater than the direct value of the immaterial good. By trying to capture value only through direct consumer transactions and restricting access to knowledge goods you are able to collect a monopoly rent on the primary good but you are killing off the massive value that is generated via the knowledge produced by brains in cooperation with access to said goods. If you prefer, I will use metaphor. Imagine honey as the primary, consumer good. Bee hives are the producers of honey. Bees also create massive value through their pollination activity. That value is external to the production of the primary good, and yet is worth many many times more than the good itself. If you kill off the pollination activity (i.e. you restrict access to knowledge that brains need to produce knowledge through knowledge) you are killing off all of that value. Yes, but we're not shutting off the knowledge in case of say, patent rights. In fact a patent right forces to disclose knowledge. You can't claim a patent without distributing the knowledge and schematics of your innovation. What we're getting the rent from in our system is the honey, which is the good that is being restricted through say copyright on a piece of music or a monopoly temporarily granted on a drug. The knowledge is all out there. That's what the intellectual property scheme exists for in the first place. So that innovators can share their findings without fearing that their research will not be compensated. What you're talking about here would be a trade secret. Which is not strongly protected intellectual property, because it can be copied through legitimate means. If there was no intellectual property everybody would keep everything a trade secret. The only way to hang on to your value would be to hide the innovation behind your good the way Coca Cola hangs on to their recipe. This is what would discourage innovating and sharing of information. 1) patents don't usually disclose very much beyond what the public already knows merely from the good existing in the marketplace. 2)patents restrict innovation by preventing dissemination and use of ideas that incorporate ideas in the patent. look at software and business methods patents 3) copyright on music and software directly impinges upon knowledge production by restricting access and usage. the same arguments against copyright are applicable to the supposed "sharing" of knowledge that you argue patents provide but you kind of conflate the two forms of IP it doesn't seem like you've read many patents. nor does it seem like you are very well informed about what patent thickets are and how they affect the production of knowledge The argument that patents are a net loss for innovation is highly suspect. If there was no way to protect an invention or design for a period of time, there would be no reason to spend the resources developing it. The same with copyrights and music. A band can spend years and a lot of money working an album. If they could not protect it from being copied and resold, there would be zero reason for a record label to pay the band for it. They would have no ability to make money off of their labor that's completely absurd. people make things all the time without expectation of monetary remuneration. record labels are dead anyway. you are stuck in the 90s, seriously.
My fiancee is in a band and they have been working on their EP for over a year. They dropped in excess of $3,000 just on record and producing the damn thing. That does not even go into the money they have spent on musical equipment and time writing and practicing the songs, which has to be over 1000 man hours of labor.
There would be zero reason to invest any of that if they could not receive a return, even if it was just the chance of a return. You just want free shit and don’t value the work people put into creating things. Which is fine, they don’t really value you in any way either, since you don’t care about their work enough to pay for it.
|
On September 22 2016 03:20 IgnE wrote:Show nested quote +On September 22 2016 03:18 Nyxisto wrote:
Sorry but you're conflating different forms of IP here. Pirating videogames or music off the internet isn't going to make you a musician or a game developer. The knowledge to become a producer of goods is already in the public sphere. That's the "pollination" in your example before, and that's where patents come in.
What you want is simply free honey. I mean you can argue in favour of that but don't tell me that eating honey somehow makes me beekeeper you have an extremely limited grasp of how innovation in software works. music in particular is a really bad example for you to have chosen given the popularity of remixing. maybe you should read anything by larry lessig. or perhaps benkler's the weath of networks.
and you can make a remix, you're just going to have to compensate the person who created the original IP if you want to use their good. That actually happens all the time. We've got more remixes right now than we ever had before. Whether the length of copyrights is always appropriate is obviously something that can be debated, but for people to be able to produce original works there needs to be a mechanism for them to be compensated.
|
I've looked up some patents; and imho they violate the law. There's clear statutory language that covers what can and cannot be patented, and in the tech area, a lot of patents seem to be granted for things that should be ineligible by the statutes.
So I'd say the problem is that some hacks in the Patent and Trademark office don't know anything about technology and are granting things they shouldn't be.
|
On September 22 2016 03:20 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On September 22 2016 03:11 IgnE wrote:On September 22 2016 02:54 Nyxisto wrote:On September 22 2016 02:42 IgnE wrote:On September 22 2016 02:23 Nyxisto wrote:On September 22 2016 02:16 IgnE wrote:
Intellectual property regimes favored by the US (here meaning the current dominant lobbying groups) only serve to reduce the production of knowledge through knowledge by charging monopoly or near-monopoly rents on immaterial goods that cost essentially nothing to reproduce and make available. Access is everything, and the fenced walls that the American imperialists want to erect are both immoral (because they perpetuate oppressive monopoly relations) and self-destructive (because they inhibit and destroy the potential value of the externalities being created by networked brains in cooperation and being captured by the new form of capitalism). Many of the capitalists know this (i.e. google). And yet we still have people trotting out prosy Reaganite shibboleths about unending 5% growth. You're contradicting yourself here. If it's true that intellectual property schemes are destructive, than the US shouldn't be on the forefront of technological innovation and should have long been surpassed by nations that do not run such rigorous intellectual property schemes. Either virtual goods function similar to classical goods and then you can make the case that the US is exploiting their position, or they don't, but in that case the US wouldn't be where it is in the first place. I'm all for open access when possible but intellectual property protection has its place in value creation. No I'm not. The value produced via externalities in knowledge production is orders of magnitude greater than the direct value of the immaterial good. By trying to capture value only through direct consumer transactions and restricting access to knowledge goods you are able to collect a monopoly rent on the primary good but you are killing off the massive value that is generated via the knowledge produced by brains in cooperation with access to said goods. If you prefer, I will use metaphor. Imagine honey as the primary, consumer good. Bee hives are the producers of honey. Bees also create massive value through their pollination activity. That value is external to the production of the primary good, and yet is worth many many times more than the good itself. If you kill off the pollination activity (i.e. you restrict access to knowledge that brains need to produce knowledge through knowledge) you are killing off all of that value. Yes, but we're not shutting off the knowledge in case of say, patent rights. In fact a patent right forces to disclose knowledge. You can't claim a patent without distributing the knowledge and schematics of your innovation. What we're getting the rent from in our system is the honey, which is the good that is being restricted through say copyright on a piece of music or a monopoly temporarily granted on a drug. The knowledge is all out there. That's what the intellectual property scheme exists for in the first place. So that innovators can share their findings without fearing that their research will not be compensated. What you're talking about here would be a trade secret. Which is not strongly protected intellectual property, because it can be copied through legitimate means. If there was no intellectual property everybody would keep everything a trade secret. The only way to hang on to your value would be to hide the innovation behind your good the way Coca Cola hangs on to their recipe. This is what would discourage innovating and sharing of information. 1) patents don't usually disclose very much beyond what the public already knows merely from the good existing in the marketplace. 2)patents restrict innovation by preventing dissemination and use of ideas that incorporate ideas in the patent. look at software and business methods patents 3) copyright on music and software directly impinges upon knowledge production by restricting access and usage. the same arguments against copyright are applicable to the supposed "sharing" of knowledge that you argue patents provide but you kind of conflate the two forms of IP it doesn't seem like you've read many patents. nor does it seem like you are very well informed about what patent thickets are and how they affect the production of knowledge The argument that patents are a net loss for innovation is highly suspect. If there was no way to protect an invention or design for a period of time, there would be no reason to spend the resources developing it. The same with copyrights and music. A band can spend years and a lot of money working an album. If they could not protect it from being copied and resold, there would be zero reason for a record label to pay the band for it. They would have no ability to make money off of their labor
Patents in general are a mess, because software engineers, designers, etc. are actually explicitly told not to look for existing patents because it increases the liability.
And the US patent office is given monetary incentive to rubber stamp as many patent applications as possible, and let the courts sort out which ones are invalid.
The end result is a system where companies have thousands of (bad) patents that overlap with other companies' portfolios, who will drag any competition to costly lawsuits, which is an environment that crushes any innovative startups.
|
On September 22 2016 03:33 WolfintheSheep wrote:Show nested quote +On September 22 2016 03:20 Plansix wrote:On September 22 2016 03:11 IgnE wrote:On September 22 2016 02:54 Nyxisto wrote:On September 22 2016 02:42 IgnE wrote:On September 22 2016 02:23 Nyxisto wrote:On September 22 2016 02:16 IgnE wrote:
Intellectual property regimes favored by the US (here meaning the current dominant lobbying groups) only serve to reduce the production of knowledge through knowledge by charging monopoly or near-monopoly rents on immaterial goods that cost essentially nothing to reproduce and make available. Access is everything, and the fenced walls that the American imperialists want to erect are both immoral (because they perpetuate oppressive monopoly relations) and self-destructive (because they inhibit and destroy the potential value of the externalities being created by networked brains in cooperation and being captured by the new form of capitalism). Many of the capitalists know this (i.e. google). And yet we still have people trotting out prosy Reaganite shibboleths about unending 5% growth. You're contradicting yourself here. If it's true that intellectual property schemes are destructive, than the US shouldn't be on the forefront of technological innovation and should have long been surpassed by nations that do not run such rigorous intellectual property schemes. Either virtual goods function similar to classical goods and then you can make the case that the US is exploiting their position, or they don't, but in that case the US wouldn't be where it is in the first place. I'm all for open access when possible but intellectual property protection has its place in value creation. No I'm not. The value produced via externalities in knowledge production is orders of magnitude greater than the direct value of the immaterial good. By trying to capture value only through direct consumer transactions and restricting access to knowledge goods you are able to collect a monopoly rent on the primary good but you are killing off the massive value that is generated via the knowledge produced by brains in cooperation with access to said goods. If you prefer, I will use metaphor. Imagine honey as the primary, consumer good. Bee hives are the producers of honey. Bees also create massive value through their pollination activity. That value is external to the production of the primary good, and yet is worth many many times more than the good itself. If you kill off the pollination activity (i.e. you restrict access to knowledge that brains need to produce knowledge through knowledge) you are killing off all of that value. Yes, but we're not shutting off the knowledge in case of say, patent rights. In fact a patent right forces to disclose knowledge. You can't claim a patent without distributing the knowledge and schematics of your innovation. What we're getting the rent from in our system is the honey, which is the good that is being restricted through say copyright on a piece of music or a monopoly temporarily granted on a drug. The knowledge is all out there. That's what the intellectual property scheme exists for in the first place. So that innovators can share their findings without fearing that their research will not be compensated. What you're talking about here would be a trade secret. Which is not strongly protected intellectual property, because it can be copied through legitimate means. If there was no intellectual property everybody would keep everything a trade secret. The only way to hang on to your value would be to hide the innovation behind your good the way Coca Cola hangs on to their recipe. This is what would discourage innovating and sharing of information. 1) patents don't usually disclose very much beyond what the public already knows merely from the good existing in the marketplace. 2)patents restrict innovation by preventing dissemination and use of ideas that incorporate ideas in the patent. look at software and business methods patents 3) copyright on music and software directly impinges upon knowledge production by restricting access and usage. the same arguments against copyright are applicable to the supposed "sharing" of knowledge that you argue patents provide but you kind of conflate the two forms of IP it doesn't seem like you've read many patents. nor does it seem like you are very well informed about what patent thickets are and how they affect the production of knowledge The argument that patents are a net loss for innovation is highly suspect. If there was no way to protect an invention or design for a period of time, there would be no reason to spend the resources developing it. The same with copyrights and music. A band can spend years and a lot of money working an album. If they could not protect it from being copied and resold, there would be zero reason for a record label to pay the band for it. They would have no ability to make money off of their labor Patents in general are a mess, because software engineers, designers, etc. are actually explicitly told not to look for existing patents because it increases the liability. And the US patent office is given monetary incentive to rubber stamp as many patent applications as possible, and let the courts sort out which ones are invalid. The end result is a system where companies have thousands of (bad) patents that overlap with other companies' portfolios, who will drag any competition to costly lawsuits, which is an environment that crushes any innovative startups.
I should have been clearer. The current system has a number of flaws and exploits which should be updated. The same with copyright law. But updating and modernizing them are the keys, not removing them entirely to promote some false utopia of “free flowing information and innovation” that will just remove any incentive to invent things.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
