Topic: VOTE * Do you believe in "Intellectual Property" laws? - page 2. (Read 2321 times)

True, there should be a balance between assuring creators that they have control of their work and investors that they'll get money out of it. IP should protect innovation but not stifle it.

I think it is particularly important for new creators, artists and inventors to be protected and rewarded for their work. Many times, however, this measure it is abused because it is the result of a legal fight between big companies trying to monopolize a product for their big financial interests.

This IP needs a reasonable use period but not one that makes it unusable in the Public Domain parody works can get around that but the rule should be for active usage to a reasonable period of time.
Mickey Mouse being an IP forever or songs from mainstream artists from 20 years ago or 1997 like the first Britney Spears songs etc should be fair game for public use.

As it is corporations have an incentive to stifle creativity for profit so on practice against IP as it is used currently but not in principle.

As an example when it is applied to medicine .... our current system is broken when it comes to alternative medicine.
If a new drug must be certified every-time using our current system it would severely limit the real world applications of phage therapy and customized treatments which can save peoples lives.
http://www.ctvnews.ca/health/how-doctors-could-use-viruses-to-kill-drug-resistant-bacteria-1.3412045

--
The World Health Organization estimates that antimicrobial resistance will kill at least 50 million people per year by 2050. Researchers hope Patterson’s remarkable recovery story could spark renewed interest for mainstream medicine to explore phage therapy as a treatment against drug-resistant bacteria.

“We’re going to need an additional alternative method of treating deadly bacteria, and so I see phage therapy as a front-runner for that alternate medicine,” said Jon Dennis, a microbiologist with the University of Alberta.

Dennis said Patterson’s case was extraordinary because it was the first time in North America that modern science paid attention to phage therapy as a viable treatment.

“There has been difficulty getting funding to do basic phage therapy research. The problem lies in that a lot of the phage therapy data that we have is historical, it’s anecdotal and it hasn’t been performed in the modern era,” he said.

But phage therapy is hardly a one-size-fits-all solution. Doctors need to create a unique combination of different types of bacteriophage for a patient’s particular case.

“They’re not simple to use,” Schooley said. “They seem to be relatively safe to give, but they’re going to be difficult to develop from both the research perspective, and also from the regulatory perspective, because each patient’s phage cocktail is a different cocktail.”

Despite the challenges, doctors are optimistic that the century-old method could be one way to fight the growing global threat of antibiotic resistance.

So who should pay the big costs of developing a movie? Because while individual piracy is rampant, television stations and cinemas can't get away with copying their work without pay so the movie studios survive.

Who should pay the costs of developing a drug? These cost enormous amounts of money to develop safely, and while there are issues with current patent laws, at the very least they ensure drugs are continually developed despite some of them running into costs into the billions.

Should writers make books for free? If anyone can freely copy their books then the publishers won't pay the writer after he sends in a copy for review.

Yes, I believe in intellectual property laws.

If someone expresses his intellectual property, it isn't entirely his anymore.

However, if he makes a deal with someone to keep it private, and the other person DOESN'T keep it private, then the contract has been broken. In that case contract law applies.

I'm sure the Chinese could easily this problem. But I think a hybrid car is not very in demand, therefore the Chinese do not. Much cheaper to make electric cars and the Chinese they have long been doing.

Inventing something is only the beginning. With technology getting more and more sophisticated, it's getting more and more difficult to copy. Besides the invention, you need to be smart enough to produce it efficiently. Look at the hybrid cars from Toyota. Their hybrid technology is heavily patented, but even without those patents, I doubt another car company could make a car as good at the same cost.

I think not incentivize but support. I mean, just look at artists, they create a civilization's material culture. They can only create if their not running on an empty stomach and that's how patronage became a big thing in the past. Artists these days would either have to find funding via commissions, sell their works, or have a part-time job.

That's why I think some degree of IP protection is needed for our innovators to keep on working. If they'll be receiving income from one of their advancement, then they're free to work on other projects without worrying over the usual maintenance for living.


@Sithara the problem with cost could be solved with proper legislation not related to IP. For example, medicines can have a price ceiling. The most worrying about stricter IP is its chilling effects on new entrants. It's a dog-eat-dog world out there. Big companies are know to use IP to sue smaller players over the littlest things.

@af_newbie Tesla would agree with that. Damn Edison!

There are many selfless brilliant people that would release inventions for free.

Problem is that the system is controlled by greed.

Most geniuses do not care that much about the money.   

Hmmmmm some very good points above especially when it comes to helping humanity.
I may be starting to reconsider my opinion....

What comes to mind is a recent scenario here in ireland where a group of around 600
people suffer from Cystic Fibrosis and a new drug ORKAMBI is so expensive that the
Government initially couldnt afford to procure it.

Should the pharmaceutical companies for instance be allowed to basically hold
society to account to fund their profits?

If this wasnt the case would we have the drugs and medical tools etc. We have today?

I hope i havent moved the goalposts, i think this still comes down to IP and how.
The pharma companies operate......

Naturally the inventor is obviously entitled to the right to profit but its up to the inventor to find a way to  be part of the project of course not using back doors. Look at who the bitcoin technology has grown without IP considered and how altcoin developers profit from their inventions by a simple premine to keep them part of the project. To be honest bitcoin technology has revolutionized how open-source tools can help anyone profit without IP barriers

simple, they have the financial power to make your invention go mainstream and the believe in your invention more than you do

So, what do you think? If someone invents a technology or a drug, then he should not have the right to profit out of it? And why someone else should profit out of this invention?

Creativity does not have to be 'incentivized'. It just has to be 'not stifled'.

The key to a dog running is to take off it's leash, not "give it something" or "teach it something".

What's up with the mentality that the government has anything whatsoever to do with creativity, aside from being able to harm it?

Corporations have lobbied IP laws to protect their monopolies and stiff real innovations!

You can incentivize creativity with another means - state funding, crowdfunding, donations, advertising, support etc.

Honestly, it depends on what your priority is.

If your goal is to produce a small minded society of petty people who look at 'innovation' as a financial issue then intellectual property is a useful concept.

If you want society to really develop though it is probably better not to use laws to monetize and restrict ideas.

'

As for your scissors idea, most people who have 'invented' stuff are adult enough to realize that they were only building on ideas that had preceded. If somebody came to me and said he wanted credit for inventing the scissors, or whatever, and wanted protection from other people possibly using that idea for popular benefit, I would kick him in the nuts and tell him to invent stronger pants.

do you not think there has to be some protection for people who create and develop?

suppose you invent the scissors after a lot of development consisting of time and expense and
show it to me as a potential investor . . .

"Thanks lads, that was a great idea, there's the door, I'll produce this myself,
come back to me with your next invention and I'll just rip you off and copy it, again...simple!"

 

I copy that phrase to emphasize it, and I offer no money to you for doing so. Thus, I can pay you in bitcoin for using your idea and I do not even need your bitcoin address.

Despite owning a lot of IP, I voted no.

Intellectual property was invented by rich people so that they could keep their wealth while the poor would remain poor. IP's also a recent invention. The world was doing fine before it was invented.

I don't see the US unjustly using this issue against China, they did engage in industrial espionage in the past.


Not only that Disney was quite hypocritical in making money out of "open source" materials, aka folktales. I bet anyone can get sued for making money out anything with the Disney princesses on them.


Not to mention this might discourage progress since you just need to come up with one good product and live of that the rest of your life. It also puts a damper on others who might want to improve on existing proprietary processes.

If you copy somebody else's work, writing for example, and claim that it is your own, in a word 'plagiarism', then you are lying, which is a separate issue.

It has never been acceptable in universities to lie regarding information, whether lying about the source of the information, lying about its content or lying about some other aspect. There has never been a university or other organization that said "we are not sure whether lying and / or plagiarism are okay".

There has never been a need, and hopefully never will be, to decide whether a student can lie in order to prove expertise. It is a subject people agree on, students lying is not good. But that is a completely separate issue from 'intellectual property'.