[Potemkin]

Patents, and intellectual property rights in general, are not the free market at work. In fact, their purpose is to prevent the operation of the free market, in order to incentivise the huge investment required to produce the good which is to be patented. It’s big government and big business working hand-in-glove.

[Pants-of-dog]

I often wonder how many lives would have been saved had the big pharma companies been forced to hand over the formulas for Covid vaccines.

We probably could have saved millions in India alone.

[Potemkin]

I often wonder how many lives would have been saved had the big pharma companies been forced to hand over the formulas for Covid vaccines.

We probably could have saved millions in India alone.

Indeed. Even most libertarians are hostile to the whole concept of intellectual property rights, since they require the intervention of big government to enforce them. The moral argument is what usually sways non-libertarians, of course.

[Fasces]

Guys, Kamala is a communist because she wants to make markets freeer.

[Unthinking Majority]

Patents, and intellectual property rights in general, are not the free market at work. In fact, their purpose is to prevent the operation of the free market, in order to incentivise the huge investment required to produce the good which is to be patented. It’s big government and big business working hand-in-glove.

This is correct. It's not just about big business though, it's about any business including small businesses who profit from this also.

The question is whether or not IP is desirable. If you spend money and time/labour on R&D and anyone can just steal your idea for free then why would anyone bother to take the risks of creating anything new? The larger companies would just steamroll over the smaller ones even more i'd think simply from beating them on margins from economies of scale, plus brand recognition, previous distribution relationships etc.

[Unthinking Majority]

Guys, Kamala is a communist because she wants to make markets freeer.

No she's a "communist" (allegedly) for wanting the government to steal people's property and give it to others for their alleged benefit. A "free market" would be what a lot of Chinese companies do, which is to steal the property themselves while contributing nothing to its creation. Oh wait that sounds exactly like communism too, just skipping the middleman.

I think the US needs more regulation or whatnot to bring drug costs down. However, it is a little odd to say the government is just going to steal it. Just fine the companies that break the regulations and make it illegal.

[Fasces]

A lack of IP laws isn't theft. IP protection isn't a natural right. IP is a literal government forced monopoly.

When Ogg saw Grogg cook meat on stone over a fire, Ogg didn't have to pay Grogg a licensing fee to make his own stone-pan.

[Hakeer]

This is correct. It's not just about big business though, it's about any business including small businesses who profit from this also.

The question is whether or not IP is desirable. If you spend money and time/labour on R&D and anyone can just steal your idea for free then why would anyone bother to take the risks of creating anything new? The larger companies would just steamroll over the smaller ones even more i'd think simply from beating them on margins from economies of scale, plus brand recognition, previous distribution relationships etc.

I was going to respond to this thread until I read your comment. Good job.

A capitalist will not invest tons of time and money into any project, unless there’s a reasonable prospect of recouping the investment at the other end. That’s what a patent allows.

[Truth To Power]

A capitalist will not invest tons of time and money into any project, unless there’s a reasonable prospect of recouping the investment at the other end.

Whether the "project" is productive investment or unproductive rent seeking...

That’s what a patent allows.

GARBAGE. People have technical problems that they want to solve, and are willing to pay engineers to solve them. A patent just stops other people from using the same solution unless they meet the patent holder's extortion demands. The notion that the people who pay the engineers would not do so without the prospect of obtaining a patent monopoly has no basis in fact, logic, economics, or history. Engineers are constantly coming up with solutions that for one reason or another are not patentable, and none of their employers has then said, "Oh, damn, that was a waste of money."

[Truth To Power]

No she's a "communist" (allegedly) for wanting the government to steal people's property and give it to others for their alleged benefit.

GARBAGE. Government rescinding a government-issued and -enforced monopoly privilege is not "stealing." Copying is not stealing.

A "free market" would be what a lot of Chinese companies do, which is to steal the property themselves while contributing nothing to its creation.

GARBAGE. Copying is not stealing. Stealing deprives the owner of what he would otherwise be able to use. Copying does not deprive anyone of anything, it just makes more copies available.

Oh wait that sounds exactly like communism too, just skipping the middleman.

No it doesn't. Communism denies private property in anything. Liberty and justice only deny private property in privilege.

I think the US needs more regulation or whatnot to bring drug costs down. However, it is a little odd to say the government is just going to steal it.

It's "odd" to say it because it is baldly false. It has nothing to do with stealing.

[Hakeer]

Whether the "project" is productive investment or unproductive rent seeking...

GARBAGE. People have technical problems that they want to solve, and are willing to pay engineers to solve them. A patent just stops other people from using the same solution unless they meet the patent holder's extortion demands. The notion that the people who pay the engineers would not do so without the prospect of obtaining a patent monopoly has no basis in fact, logic, economics, or history. Engineers are constantly coming up with solutions that for one reason or another are not patentable, and none of their employers has then said, "Oh, damn, that was a waste of money."

I understand what you are talking about, but not all research projects are small scale. The bio-tech industry is a good example. I own a little stock in a bio-tech company (symbol RGLS). I bought in when they were a startup company with no product and no profit. It’s almost like buying a lottery ticket. For years, they operated at a loss on venture capital. They are in the scientific cutting edge of their field, but in bio-tech it takes lots of money and some luck to get a new drug to market. The venture capitalists and stockholders would not put money into the company, if they did not get a patent on the drug. The big pharma companies would just take over the drug and crush them.

[Truth To Power]

This is correct. It's not just about big business though, it's about any business including small businesses who profit from this also.

No, it's about the fact that relieving scarcity is good, and aggravating it is evil.

The question is whether or not IP is desirable.

No, the question is whether you can ever find a willingness to know the fact that it is not.

If you spend money and time/labour on R&D and anyone can just steal your idea for free

"Steal"?? What an absurd and disingenuous load of tripe. Try to get this through your head: copying is not stealing. If you have the bright idea of adding molasses to a pot of chili, and I like the taste and decide to add some molasses to mine, I have not stolen anything from you.

Clear?

You still have your pot of chili, and you can still use your idea all you want. There is no justification for you to forcibly try to stop anyone else from adding molasses to their chili, or for government to do it on your behalf.

Clear??

then why would anyone bother to take the risks of creating anything new?

Because they want it. What a concept! Why did you add molasses to your chili? Would you refuse to add molasses to your chili if you could not get a patent on it?

Give your head a shake.

The larger companies would just steamroll over the smaller ones even more i'd think simply from beating them on margins from economies of scale, plus brand recognition, previous distribution relationships etc.

IP monopolies hugely favor the large companies that can afford the legal teams. When I was working for Hitachi many years ago, I learned that they had a special team of engineers and patent lawyers whose only job was to go through each new issue of the US Patent Office Gazette, identify promising new technologies, and file as many derivative patent applications as they could based on them. These people were not developing new products. They were not developing new technologies. They were fencing off whole areas of technology to stop anyone else from developing them -- unless they paid Hitachi for permission, of course. I have no reason to doubt that other big technology companies have similar teams.

[Fasces]

No one is debating the merits or lack therof of IP law. We're making fun of the idea that more government mandated monopolies = freer market and less government mandated monopolies = communism. Its backwards.

IP law may or may not be an example of a "good regulation" but it remains a regulation of the market nonetheless.

[Truth To Power]

I understand what you are talking about,

No you don't. You proved that in our exchange about landowning.

but not all research projects are small scale.

It couldn't matter less what the scale is.

I own a little stock in a bio-tech company (symbol RGLS).

I am shocked -- shocked! -- to learn that you are an aspiring rentier.

I bought in when they were a startup company with no product and no profit. It’s almost like buying a lottery ticket.

Except that unlike IP monopolies, lotteries don't aggravate the general scarcity (at least not much -- they do involve a certain overhead of administrative waste, like casinos).

For years, they operated at a loss on venture capital. They are in the scientific cutting edge of their field, but in bio-tech it takes lots of money and some luck to get a new drug to market. The venture capitalists and stockholders would not put money into the company, if they did not get a patent on the drug.

So maybe the research resources could be devoted to unpatentable formulations that would be safer and more efficacious.

The big pharma companies would just take over the drug

What do you mean, "take over" the drug? How would they "take it over"?

and crush them.

You mean provide the drug at far lower cost, the way we can buy vitamins from big companies? Oh, no, wait a minute, that's right: we can buy niche vitamin formulations from small companies despite the fact that they are unpatentable.

[Truth To Power]

No one is debating the merits or lack therof of IP law.

I am.

We're making fun of the idea that more government mandated monopolies = freer market and less government mandated monopolies = communism. Its backwards.

True.

IP law may or may not be an example of a "good regulation" but it remains a regulation of the market nonetheless.

"Free market" means, "government forcibly violating others' rights in a way that is profitable to me."

[Unthinking Majority]

I was going to respond to this thread until I read your comment. Good job.

A capitalist will not invest tons of time and money into any project, unless there’s a reasonable prospect of recouping the investment at the other end. That’s what a patent allows.

The Chinese love patents too because they can just steal them and make cheap counterfeit replicas while everyone else besides the creators follow the IP laws.

Anyways, like and subscribe to me on Xootube. I've got a channel where i post car videos of my new Tord Mustrang and Fesla Roadstar EV. Steering wheels turn my fingers green but whatevs.

[Unthinking Majority]

GARBAGE. Government rescinding a government-issued and -enforced monopoly privilege is not "stealing." Copying is not stealing.

GARBAGE. Copying is not stealing. Stealing deprives the owner of what he would otherwise be able to use. Copying does not deprive anyone of anything, it just makes more copies available.

No it doesn't. Communism denies private property in anything. Liberty and justice only deny private property in privilege.

It's "odd" to say it because it is baldly false. It has nothing to do with stealing.

Ok so when a video game company spends 100 million dollars to create a video game and everyone pirates it (copies it) its not stealing?

That's what I thought when I stole music on Napster and we destroyed an entire industry and now music sucks.

The morals/principles don't matter here as much as the results. "Stealing" is good if fire departments work better as taxpayer-owned monopolies.

[Hakeer]

No you don't. You proved that in our exchange about landowning.

It couldn't matter less what the scale is.

I am shocked -- shocked! -- to learn that you are an aspiring rentier.

Except that unlike IP monopolies, lotteries don't aggravate the general scarcity (at least not much -- they do involve a certain overhead of administrative waste, like casinos).

So maybe the research resources could be devoted to unpatentable formulations that would be safer and more efficacious.

What do you mean, "take over" the drug? How would they "take it over"?

You mean provide the drug at far lower cost, the way we can buy vitamins from big companies? Oh, no, wait a minute, that's right: we can buy niche vitamin formulations from small companies despite the fact that they are unpatentable.

Shock to you, but I do understand what you are talking about. I am not an engineer myself, but I have them in my family (brother-in-law physicist for Boeing, nephew as computer engineer for Nvidia, and son is chemical engineer at the pharmaceutical company). I know first-hand that they have all solved technological problems for their corporations, and, as far as I know, only one of them resulted in a patent.


Leaving that aside, you do not seem to understand how the bio-tech industry works economically. Venture capitalists and stock investors watch basically two things: (1) how close they are to getting through clinical trials to get the drug to market, and (2) how fast they are burning through the money provided by the venture capitalists and stockholders. It is literally a race against time. If they could not get a patent, NOBODY in his right mind would put up the capital to get the research started in the first place. It is not something that one person discovers by accident. It takes a team of researchers, lots of expensive equipment and other resources. That is why the capital is necessary. Without the patent, big pharma would easily drive them out of business. You may think that’s good, but it is not. That’s because the drug would not ever exist in the first place for them to take over. A startup bio-tech like RGLS usually works on drugs that are not in direct competition with big pharma. . These are less common diseases, and so there is less economic incentives to find drugs to treat them. However, if you have one of these diseases, you are happy that at least one bio-tech company is working hard on it and has the financial resources to possibly succeed.

[Unthinking Majority]

No one is debating the merits or lack therof of IP law. We're making fun of the idea that more government mandated monopolies = freer market and less government mandated monopolies = communism. Its backwards.

IP law may or may not be an example of a "good regulation" but it remains a regulation of the market nonetheless.

This is true. I support good government regulations.

I think her example would be both a freer market (less monpolies) and at least socialism (government stealzies for the common benefit).

Note i'm not blanket pro free-market or anti-socialism. I live in Canada and some government intervention (ownership, regulation) definitely works well here while others not as much.

[Unthinking Majority]

I often wonder how many lives would have been saved had the big pharma companies been forced to hand over the formulas for Covid vaccines.

We probably could have saved millions in India alone.

Well the thing is would the COVID vaccines have been developed in only 8 months or whatever it was if the profit-motive wasn't spectacularly high like it was?

I have no idea how the distribution worked for the vaccines but i do hope poorer countries weren't felt out. It would have been in every country's interests to get every country as many vaccines as they needed as quickly as possible.