|
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 03:32 zlefin wrote:
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.
there has been some interesting stuff happening around tech and IP patent law recently. see alice corp vs cls bank (supreme court) which established the framework to determine patent enforceability (sort of). there's another case, McRo vs bandai which is gonna be big when it drops this year.
|
On September 22 2016 03:36 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On September 22 2016 03:33 WolfintheSheep wrote: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.
"Any incentive" is also overreaching. Look at Elon Musk. He's invented new things and open sourced the patents. Why? Because he wants to do good. People have lots of incentives, it's not just about money for everyone in this world. A lot of people invent simply for the sake of inventing and pushing the edge.
Not that I don't think patents should exist... for real and genuinely new ideas. Not the way it is being done now. It has gotten way too much out of hand.
|
On September 22 2016 03:27 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On September 22 2016 03:22 IgnE wrote: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.
People spend $3k on silly hobbies all the time. Your argument makes no sense. Your fiancee clearly loves being in a band. Please don't tell me that you've pinned your financial future on her being able to make a lot of money selling her cds and laserdiscs.
It's not about free shit. I'd prefer if you just engaged with my arguments about the economic soundness of my alternative regimes rather than impute motives about my wanting free shit. You know that the cd-selling business model has been dead for a long time now right? Presumably your fiancee could get paid through a variety of other mechanisms including playing live events and/or donations.
On September 22 2016 03:30 Nyxisto wrote:Show nested quote +On September 22 2016 03:20 IgnE wrote: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.
ok thanks for repeating my argument. the monopoly payment is precisely the inhibitor. glad we are clear on that since you otherwise have no idea what you are talking about. as an aside, most of those remixes don't involve payments. the majority of musicians on the planet release their music for free. that's a fact.
On September 22 2016 03:32 zlefin wrote:
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.
actually it's the patent trial and appeals board, then the appellate courts, and finally the supreme court which dictate policy that the USPTO simply carries out. if you talk to some patent attorneys they think the USPTO doesn't give out enough patents. but the regime is a combination of statutes, execution, and enforcement, not simply the letter of the statute (which is obviously open to interpretation as every lawyer knows).
|
On September 22 2016 03:38 a_flayer wrote:Show nested quote +On September 22 2016 03:36 Plansix wrote:On September 22 2016 03:33 WolfintheSheep wrote: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. " Any incentive" is also overreaching. Look at Elon Musk. He's invented new things and open sourced the patents. Why? Because he wants to do good. People have lots of incentives, it's not just about money for everyone in this world.
Yeah, he already has money, so he doesn’t care about getting more. For people like my fiancée and her band mates, making money means they can continue their hobby and maybe, if they are very luck, make a living off of music.
IgnE: I’m going to safely say I know my fiancée's band better than you. They wouldn’t be investing as much as they are if there was zero chance of a pay day. They love music, but they also have lives and day jobs. Time with the band is time away from spouses and money that could be spent on other things. Don’t expect people to buy into your non-sense just because you are unwilling to pay for their work.
|
On September 22 2016 03:41 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On September 22 2016 03:38 a_flayer wrote:On September 22 2016 03:36 Plansix wrote:On September 22 2016 03:33 WolfintheSheep wrote: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. " Any incentive" is also overreaching. Look at Elon Musk. He's invented new things and open sourced the patents. Why? Because he wants to do good. People have lots of incentives, it's not just about money for everyone in this world. Yeah, he already has money, so he doesn’t care about getting more. For people like my fiancée and her band mates, making money means they can continue their hobby and maybe, if they are very luck, make a living off of music.
Patents have nothing to do with copyrights.
|
On September 22 2016 03:36 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On September 22 2016 03:33 WolfintheSheep wrote: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.
that's not how human incentive works. you are reducing human beings to the fabled homo economicus.
|
United States42009 Posts
On September 22 2016 03:38 a_flayer wrote:Show nested quote +On September 22 2016 03:36 Plansix wrote:On September 22 2016 03:33 WolfintheSheep wrote: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. " Any incentive" is also overreaching. Look at Elon Musk. He's invented new things and open sourced the patents. Why? Because he wants to do good. People have lots of incentives, it's not just about money for everyone in this world. A lot of people invent simply for the sake of inventing and pushing the edge.
Don't delude yourself. When there are competing models to fill a new technological niche standardization is incredibly important. What Elon Musk is doing is comparable to a manufacturer of VHS machines telling anyone that they can record stuff on VHS. Elon Musk is a businessman, he knows the patents have value only if they take off and become the standard model in the market.
|
Starting to look like some pretty massive lies coming out of the police in Tulsa. Reached into his car window, yet his window was closed. Oy. This is gonna get worse before it gets better.
|
On September 22 2016 03:41 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On September 22 2016 03:38 a_flayer wrote:On September 22 2016 03:36 Plansix wrote:On September 22 2016 03:33 WolfintheSheep wrote: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. " Any incentive" is also overreaching. Look at Elon Musk. He's invented new things and open sourced the patents. Why? Because he wants to do good. People have lots of incentives, it's not just about money for everyone in this world. Yeah, he already has money, so he doesn’t care about getting more. For people like my fiancée and her band mates, making money means they can continue their hobby and maybe, if they are very luck, make a living off of music. IgnE: I’m going to safely say I know my fiancée's band better than you. They wouldn’t be investing as much as they are if there was zero chance of a pay day. They love music, but they also have lives and day jobs. Time with the band is time away from spouses and money that could be spent on other things. Don’t expect people to buy into your non-sense just because you are unwilling to pay for their work.
it literally blows my mind that you don't see the contradiction in your own argument.
1) my fiancee would do it even if she never got paid
2) she wouldn't do it if she could never get paid
3) you just want free shit
uhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh
|
On September 22 2016 03:42 IgnE wrote:Show nested quote +On September 22 2016 03:36 Plansix wrote:On September 22 2016 03:33 WolfintheSheep wrote: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. that's not how human incentive works. you are reducing human beings to the fabled homo economicus.
And you are trying to reduce the creation of art or invocation to some naïve ideal of creativity for the sake of creativity and ignoring the economic reality the creators face. And you’re doing so because you don’t see their work as worthy of your money. Which is fine right up until you demand that it all be free for you.
|
On September 22 2016 03:46 IgnE wrote:Show nested quote +On September 22 2016 03:41 Plansix wrote:On September 22 2016 03:38 a_flayer wrote:On September 22 2016 03:36 Plansix wrote:On September 22 2016 03:33 WolfintheSheep wrote: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:
[quote]
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. " Any incentive" is also overreaching. Look at Elon Musk. He's invented new things and open sourced the patents. Why? Because he wants to do good. People have lots of incentives, it's not just about money for everyone in this world. Yeah, he already has money, so he doesn’t care about getting more. For people like my fiancée and her band mates, making money means they can continue their hobby and maybe, if they are very luck, make a living off of music. IgnE: I’m going to safely say I know my fiancée's band better than you. They wouldn’t be investing as much as they are if there was zero chance of a pay day. They love music, but they also have lives and day jobs. Time with the band is time away from spouses and money that could be spent on other things. Don’t expect people to buy into your non-sense just because you are unwilling to pay for their work. it literally blows my mind that you don't see the contradiction in your own argument. 1) my fiancee would do it even if she never got paid 2) she wouldn't do it if she could never get paid 3) you just want free shit uhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh
They don’t perform shows for free? They never have. They always get paid. Do you not understand that the majority of bands in this world are part time?
|
Igne -> I think the problem mostly lies somewhere within the PTO office itself; for granting stuff that clearly shouldn't have been granted in the first place.
|
On September 22 2016 03:47 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On September 22 2016 03:42 IgnE wrote:On September 22 2016 03:36 Plansix wrote:On September 22 2016 03:33 WolfintheSheep wrote: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. that's not how human incentive works. you are reducing human beings to the fabled homo economicus. And you are trying to reduce the creation of art or invocation to some naïve ideal of creativity for the sake of creativity and ignoring the economic reality the creators face. And you’re doing so because you don’t see their work as worthy of your money. Which is fine right up until you demand that it all be free for you.
i'm the one precisely arguing that it is valuable. your fiancee's band will most likely never be a significant income stream and yet she is producing value. people can and will pay them if they are any good through a donation model or in return for live music. what people cannot and should not pay for is the simple, essentially free, copying of a digital recording that is immaterial and frictionless. if your fiancee's band inspires some person in bangladesh to make more and better music that's the pollination in action. if your fiancee puts the (free to reproduce) recordings behind a paywall that might very well never happen. that's a net reduction in value all because your fiancee wants to recoup some expenses that she would have paid for anyway, because she loves creating.
|
On September 22 2016 03:36 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On September 22 2016 03:33 WolfintheSheep wrote: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.
Thing is that we basically have both right now.
The scope of copyright and patents basically means that the vast majority of people will live their lives infringing, knowingly or otherwise, with no enforcement being taken against them.
Or the ones that do get caught up in the laws end up running into endless brick walls, because you basically only take legal action when you want to stop someone.
Barring a drastic overhaul and invalidation of millions of patents and copyright laws, and an acceptance that current copyright/patent views is just not part of a person's thought process, we're stuck in a situation where the intent will never match the practice.
|
On September 22 2016 03:49 zlefin wrote:
Igne -> I think the problem mostly lies somewhere within the PTO office itself; for granting stuff that clearly shouldn't have been granted in the first place.
and how much do you know about the patent examining process?
|
On September 22 2016 03:42 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On September 22 2016 03:38 a_flayer wrote:On September 22 2016 03:36 Plansix wrote:On September 22 2016 03:33 WolfintheSheep wrote: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. " Any incentive" is also overreaching. Look at Elon Musk. He's invented new things and open sourced the patents. Why? Because he wants to do good. People have lots of incentives, it's not just about money for everyone in this world. A lot of people invent simply for the sake of inventing and pushing the edge. Don't delude yourself. When there are competing models to fill a new technological niche standardization is incredibly important. What Elon Musk is doing is comparable to a manufacturer of VHS machines telling anyone that they can record stuff on VHS. Elon Musk is a businessman, he knows the patents have value only if they take off and become the standard model in the market.
Come on man, if it was a business move, he'd be better off selling the rights to the patents. Having other established car manufacturers use the same technology as Tesla cars isn't going to help his business in any significant way. I don't think its comparable to VHS in that way at all. How do you imagine the base technology being used in other cars enriching his future business empire? Are you suggesting that the technology will only work with the batteries that he's making for which he won't release the patents?
Either way, the argument that some people invent simply for the sake of inventing is a valid one. They might need funding from someone in this day and age to get anything done, but that doesn't mean the drive to do so without necessarily expecting a significant return isn't there. Either that, or I am just more out of touch with my own feelings than I thought.
|
On September 22 2016 03:49 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On September 22 2016 03:46 IgnE wrote:On September 22 2016 03:41 Plansix wrote:On September 22 2016 03:38 a_flayer wrote:On September 22 2016 03:36 Plansix wrote:On September 22 2016 03:33 WolfintheSheep wrote: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:
[quote]
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. " Any incentive" is also overreaching. Look at Elon Musk. He's invented new things and open sourced the patents. Why? Because he wants to do good. People have lots of incentives, it's not just about money for everyone in this world. Yeah, he already has money, so he doesn’t care about getting more. For people like my fiancée and her band mates, making money means they can continue their hobby and maybe, if they are very luck, make a living off of music. IgnE: I’m going to safely say I know my fiancée's band better than you. They wouldn’t be investing as much as they are if there was zero chance of a pay day. They love music, but they also have lives and day jobs. Time with the band is time away from spouses and money that could be spent on other things. Don’t expect people to buy into your non-sense just because you are unwilling to pay for their work. it literally blows my mind that you don't see the contradiction in your own argument. 1) my fiancee would do it even if she never got paid 2) she wouldn't do it if she could never get paid 3) you just want free shit uhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh They don’t perform shows for free? They never have. They always get paid. Do you not understand that the majority of bands in this world are part time?
where have i argued that shows should be free dude? can you please stop being so incoherent? its impossible to discuss anything with you. it all just comes down to you saying its your opinion and you feel X way and you are getting ruffled by all the logical trains of thought coming at you so you'd rather just stop talking about it.
|
On September 22 2016 03:53 IgnE wrote:Show nested quote +On September 22 2016 03:49 Plansix wrote:On September 22 2016 03:46 IgnE wrote:On September 22 2016 03:41 Plansix wrote:On September 22 2016 03:38 a_flayer wrote:On September 22 2016 03:36 Plansix wrote:On September 22 2016 03:33 WolfintheSheep wrote:On September 22 2016 03:20 Plansix wrote:On September 22 2016 03:11 IgnE wrote:On September 22 2016 02:54 Nyxisto wrote:
[quote]
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. " Any incentive" is also overreaching. Look at Elon Musk. He's invented new things and open sourced the patents. Why? Because he wants to do good. People have lots of incentives, it's not just about money for everyone in this world. Yeah, he already has money, so he doesn’t care about getting more. For people like my fiancée and her band mates, making money means they can continue their hobby and maybe, if they are very luck, make a living off of music. IgnE: I’m going to safely say I know my fiancée's band better than you. They wouldn’t be investing as much as they are if there was zero chance of a pay day. They love music, but they also have lives and day jobs. Time with the band is time away from spouses and money that could be spent on other things. Don’t expect people to buy into your non-sense just because you are unwilling to pay for their work. it literally blows my mind that you don't see the contradiction in your own argument. 1) my fiancee would do it even if she never got paid 2) she wouldn't do it if she could never get paid 3) you just want free shit uhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh They don’t perform shows for free? They never have. They always get paid. Do you not understand that the majority of bands in this world are part time? where have i argued that shows should be free dude? can you please stop being so incoherent? its impossible to discuss anything with you. it all just comes down to you saying its your opinion and you feel X way and you are getting ruffled by all the logical trains of thought coming at you so you'd rather just stop talking about it.
So their music should be for free to copy and play by anyone if they make a recording of it? They should have no ability to legal stop someone from playing or selling their music without their approval?
|
On September 22 2016 03:49 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On September 22 2016 03:46 IgnE wrote:On September 22 2016 03:41 Plansix wrote:On September 22 2016 03:38 a_flayer wrote:On September 22 2016 03:36 Plansix wrote:On September 22 2016 03:33 WolfintheSheep wrote: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:
[quote]
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. " Any incentive" is also overreaching. Look at Elon Musk. He's invented new things and open sourced the patents. Why? Because he wants to do good. People have lots of incentives, it's not just about money for everyone in this world. Yeah, he already has money, so he doesn’t care about getting more. For people like my fiancée and her band mates, making money means they can continue their hobby and maybe, if they are very luck, make a living off of music. IgnE: I’m going to safely say I know my fiancée's band better than you. They wouldn’t be investing as much as they are if there was zero chance of a pay day. They love music, but they also have lives and day jobs. Time with the band is time away from spouses and money that could be spent on other things. Don’t expect people to buy into your non-sense just because you are unwilling to pay for their work. it literally blows my mind that you don't see the contradiction in your own argument. 1) my fiancee would do it even if she never got paid 2) she wouldn't do it if she could never get paid 3) you just want free shit uhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh They don’t perform shows for free? They never have. They always get paid. Do you not understand that the majority of bands in this world are part time?
The majority of the bands also tend to do cover songs without paying licensing/public performance fees, so...
|
On September 22 2016 03:56 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On September 22 2016 03:53 IgnE wrote:On September 22 2016 03:49 Plansix wrote:On September 22 2016 03:46 IgnE wrote:On September 22 2016 03:41 Plansix wrote:On September 22 2016 03:38 a_flayer wrote:On September 22 2016 03:36 Plansix wrote:On September 22 2016 03:33 WolfintheSheep wrote:On September 22 2016 03:20 Plansix wrote:On September 22 2016 03:11 IgnE wrote:
[quote]
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. " Any incentive" is also overreaching. Look at Elon Musk. He's invented new things and open sourced the patents. Why? Because he wants to do good. People have lots of incentives, it's not just about money for everyone in this world. Yeah, he already has money, so he doesn’t care about getting more. For people like my fiancée and her band mates, making money means they can continue their hobby and maybe, if they are very luck, make a living off of music. IgnE: I’m going to safely say I know my fiancée's band better than you. They wouldn’t be investing as much as they are if there was zero chance of a pay day. They love music, but they also have lives and day jobs. Time with the band is time away from spouses and money that could be spent on other things. Don’t expect people to buy into your non-sense just because you are unwilling to pay for their work. it literally blows my mind that you don't see the contradiction in your own argument. 1) my fiancee would do it even if she never got paid 2) she wouldn't do it if she could never get paid 3) you just want free shit uhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh They don’t perform shows for free? They never have. They always get paid. Do you not understand that the majority of bands in this world are part time? where have i argued that shows should be free dude? can you please stop being so incoherent? its impossible to discuss anything with you. it all just comes down to you saying its your opinion and you feel X way and you are getting ruffled by all the logical trains of thought coming at you so you'd rather just stop talking about it. So their music should be for free to copy and play by anyone if they make a recording of it? They should have no ability to legal stop someone from playing or selling their music without their approval?
Yes.
If you aren't aware of the multiple ways that artists get compensated for their work besides restricting access to digital copies you are only hurting your own income stream. You yourself said that they play shows. You do know that most people who go to shows have heard the music before right?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
