Sampo Syreeni wrote:
On 2011-09-19, Stefan Schreiber wrote:
Our economy is really based on IP, in some areas. Think of the
pharmaceutical industry in Britain.
Personally I'm a political pirate, and an economically minded
classical liberal/libertarian minarchist, at the same time. I'd be
labelled a federalist in the US circuit, and in the current EU one.
If you are a pirate, you just "won" the local election in Berlin. Even
if people who voted for them don't know for what the pirates stand... :-)
We all already know that physical ownership is necessary for progress
and growth. At the same time we do *not* know that "intellectual
property" is needed for that.
Because modern economy is much more based on knowledge? Because the
competition is global? Because Hollywood movies didn't even exist?
The modern day pharmaceutical industry is perhaps the one exception to
the rule that patents are bad to humanity. Why is that? Well, because
it's remained the most sacred, shielded, unquestioned, and especially
for the longest time. In part because of the huge and quite possibly
unfounded shielding it has. Sometimes that actually works. E.g. it
seems to work with certain very expensive chemotherapeutic agents,
right now. I don't think they would have gone beyond vancomycin in
antibiotics, if it wasn't for intellectual property protection.
Because that stuff already costs *tons*.
But then I actually have a small anecdote to give wrt this, right now,
in the opposite direction. Because of my own current condition. I
mean, about three months ago I suffered a rather nasty prolapsus disci
intervertebralis, which has left me unable to to work or even much
move around. One of my bigger discs in my backbone decided to rupture
in a nasty way, and suddenly I experience a rather debilitating pain
in my right leg.
The real story is that my doctor (a female one if you might wonder
about that), prescribes me etorixocib. Because it's the newest and
neatest COX-2 (cyclooxygenase-2) inhibitor around here. Yes, it does
work, to a point, and no, it doesn't mull your stomach up. She also
(atypically) knows that paracetamol/acetaminophen works via a
different route, and prescribes it together in large amounts with
etoricoxib.
What she does *not* know is that the oldest, simplest and cheapest
NSAID medication works even better. I mean, today, now that I ran out
of my prescribed NSAID, I again took a gram's worth of aspirin
(acetosalicylic acid). As before, it worked twice as well as the 30x
more expensive newer -coxib.
I've seen this process many times over already, and since I follow the
clinical and pharmacological literatures as well as I can, this is no
surprise; really, this just happens even with the best of doctors,
when the pharmaceutical industry has even a little bit of influence
upon them. Really, I'm quite certain that my doctor is totally okay
and thinks she is uninfluenced by anything; yet she prescribes me a
*very* expensive and newest COX-2 inhibitor, instead of say the stuff
they give my mom now: naproxen plus a proton pump inhibitor. Which is
much cheaper, but prolly as- or more effective than what I'm eating now.
That's how patents and the like distort real life, in the medical
circuit. ...
I am obviously sorry for this incident. If you are right, this is a case
of wrong treatment or prescription, not really patent-related.
Everybody could copy any medicament, as long as the composition is
known.
Which is then good?
This ind of industry simply would brea down without IP, because it is
quite easy to copy a chemical composition if you now it.
Do remember that the original idea behind patents was that they
eventually *should* be copied. The only question is about how soon.
If the patent is expired, which is the definitive answer.
And that calculation could very well have changed in the mean time,
after the first patent paws were passed. I mean, even *you* can't
*seriously* think technological progress goes along at the same rate
today, as it did then. Can you?
The first cars, planes and televisions were developped by several people
exactly at the same time, in every case. Sometimes ideas are ready to be
realized. And then, the technological progress was very swift.
Think also of microelectronics in the 60s/70s, after the tansistor was
developped.
Who would any development of new drugs (and perform the costly tests)
if there would be no ind of protection at all?
Maybe nobody. But answer me this: 1) why is this testing so expensive,
2) why is it mandated even against the treatmentees wants, 3) why does
the new drug has to be a cure, instead of a marginal improvement upon
a previous drug, 4) why precisely is it the drug manufacturer's
problem if they offer an imperfect drug to wanting recipients, with
full disclosure, and it then backfires,
Because patient and normal people have to be protected.
and e.g. 5) how is it that you can be convicted even for a successful,
illegal drug trial, which helped muliple individuals?
Because illegal means "not legal"? Example, anyway?
Therefore, I think there have been and there are very good reasons to
protect people or companies doing innovations. (As everybody knows,
patents are published. Therefore there is less incentive to hide
innovations from others, which is a good thing. )
I'm seeing no real reason for claiming market failure, or then market
invervention, there. I'm you know, as I've already tried to explain,
I'm pretty good at seeing all of those reason.
Thus, please continue, and keep the [ot] ("off topic") tag in the
subject line. Naturally we both like the others on-list to be able to
filter us out, as they so like.
Examples of patent abuse or patent trolls [...]
I've seen many enough even in related fields so that that's given. A
nasty one.
I have admitted there are ones...
In spite of all fashionable theories in certain circles (often
insider groups with a very homogeneous opinion on topics like
"copyright" and "patents"), I don't think it would be especially
good for the economy to abolish the concept of "soft" ownership.
Maybe not, but maybe it should be made even softer on economic rights.
Like, all immaterial rights (and especially copyright) last for
something between 2-4 years, at max, and perhaps with renewal
obligation in between?
Otherwise, accept that every Chinese company can install a "free"
copy of Windows on any PC.
I would accept. I'd then install GNU/Linux (or perhaps even GNU/Hurd)
instead. The choice would prolly be between Ubuntu and base Debian, then.
GNU/Linux is meant as a free system, and can coexist with "propietary
stuff". However, I still don't see that Linux is the best choice for
normal users. (Wasn't there also a huge problem regarding the last
update of Ubuntu? A physicist I knew lost actually files. So, they
didn't test enough.)
I maybe should co-found some company which does some 1:1 clones of
Apple computers (high quality, of course!) or iPads (you can get the
parts, no secrets here... :-D ), and accept that people can download
the latest Hollywood movie for nothing.
It does sound like a business. Given Apple's outrageous profit margins
and litigiousness, I'd be happy if you did just that.
This is why I proposed the example. Apple has huge pofits, which are
based on IP protection. However, people are still buying this stuff and
are happy about.
No matter the fact that Apple *does* really put out high quality
computing appliances in their 3-4 forms. And no matter that I am
employed by a rival firm, which right now seems to be losing to Apple.
It is obvious that Nokia had/has a mere software problem, as the quality
of the handsets is actually very high. But the phone system with the
biggest growth has recently been Android, so it is not just about Apple.
Therefore, I think you should be able to compete if you have solved your
software problems.
Best,
Stefan
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
<https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/private/sursound/attachments/20110920/0ce23457/attachment.html>
_______________________________________________
Sursound mailing list
Sursound@music.vt.edu
https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound
