Political Crossfire Forums

[Nathyn]

I was reading through some of the stuff on Marxists.org, when I came across an old essay. Can't remember which one it was now, but in any case, a person was critiquing the relationship in capitalism between technological and unemployment. One interesting thing he said, which Libertarians would probably agree with, is that one reason why capitalism is so inefficient is because of intellectual monopoly ("intellectual property") rights. Of course, this isn't specific to capitalism, but that's not the point.

His point was that the best technology is held within a small number of hands. So, for instance, I was watching a documentary on soft drinks a while back, where the documenters had the chance to visit the Dr. Pepper factory. The factory manager explained the basic process behind creating soda, but then later on said he couldn't go into any more of the specific details, because Dr. Pepper's formula is secret, as well as some of the technology behind it.

Were everybody allowed to use all technology, labor productivity would shoot through the roof. This, I think, is probably one major part of China's soaring economic growth, as they have been criticized for not uphold intellectual monopoly rights.

I agree, of course, there needs to be a few years of protection in order to give an incentive for ingenuity, but a lifetime-and-a-half is ridiculous.

[mathurin]

ironically the biggest hurdle to economic growth i have yet heard is lack of property rights, real ones, the example often given by my new proffessor who is from africa, as an example of why africa is having major troubles, people live on and farm land that they have no papers on, so the bank will not consider it an asset and they cannot take out loans on it to buy a tractor for farming, or to build a factory, without an asset for collateral, no loan, and who can blame them


specific intelectual property needs to have shorter spans, in this digital age nothing lasts long, i wouldnt have a problem with software having a life similar to a patent, instead of a copyright, give then 10 years or so, what program from 1996 isnt already outdated
however movies and music often yield well beyond 10 years old, still, letting them lapse into public domain has major advantages

[Nathyn]

mathurin wrote: ironically the biggest hurdle to economic growth i have yet heard is lack of property rights, real ones, the example often given by my new proffessor who is from africa, as an example of why africa is having major troubles, people live on and farm land that they have no papers on, so the bank will not consider it an asset and they cannot take out loans on it to buy a tractor for farming, or to build a factory, without an asset for collateral, no loan, and who can blame them


specific intelectual property needs to have shorter spans, in this digital age nothing lasts long, i wouldnt have a problem with software having a life similar to a patent, instead of a copyright, give then 10 years or so, what program from 1996 isnt already outdated
however movies and music often yield well beyond 10 years old, still, letting them lapse into public domain has major advantages
In Africa, yes, but not in first-world countries. In first-world countries, I'd say it's a combination of poor regulation and in some cases, overregulation, while in other cases, lack of regulation. Because our economic policy is determined by popularity contest rather than by rational economists, of course it's going to reflect the ignorant, incoherent ideals of the majority. Because politicians are self-interested, naturally they'll fund useless pet projects for their own benefit. Within a theoretical framework where governments are free to establish economic policy according to economics, Keynesian policies would maximize aggregate utility beyond laissez-faire capitalism. It's the political impact upon economic policy which prevents that; lack of property rights doesn't inherently stifle growth. Which is why I'm surprised there isn't more interest in "Political Economy," than in Economics.

[=CNP=]

Nathyn wrote: I

I agree, of course, there needs to be a few years of protection in order to give an incentive for ingenuity, but a lifetime-and-a-half is ridiculous.

There is also another major downside.

Somebody has a great invention, like the fabled 100 miles a gallon carberator, but was bought up and then stuffed away. The inventor either sold out or accauly though they were going to us it.

Leaving the carberator out of this, corperations do infact do this. Remember, American law demands they values profit above all else, even the good of the nation and even all of humanity and the envrioment.

Electric car, cleaner fuels, safer chemicals, these cost more and will not be made untill made avalible or the standards raised by the government.

America and Dr. Frankenstein, truely one of the same, both destroyed by their own monster.

[gavnook]

Nathyn wrote: So, for instance, I was watching a documentary on soft drinks a while back, where the documenters had the chance to visit the Dr. Pepper factory. The factory manager explained the basic process behind creating soda, but then later on said he couldn't go into any more of the specific details, because Dr. Pepper's formula is secret, as well as some of the technology behind it.

Trade secrets are not the same thing as intellectual property. In fact, one given purpose of a patent system is to encourage innovators to publish technology they might otherwise keep as trade secrets. This was Thomas Jefferson's reason for supporting patents. Of course, thousands and thousands of patents have been issued for things that never could be trade secrets.


I am very strongly opposed to patent law. Innovation is good because it makes labor more productive, life more enjoyable, and the previously impossible possible. This is all the encouragement it needs.

[Nathyn]

gavnook wrote: Nathyn wrote: So, for instance, I was watching a documentary on soft drinks a while back, where the documenters had the chance to visit the Dr. Pepper factory. The factory manager explained the basic process behind creating soda, but then later on said he couldn't go into any more of the specific details, because Dr. Pepper's formula is secret, as well as some of the technology behind it.

Trade secrets are not the same thing as intellectual property. In fact, one given purpose of a patent system is to encourage innovators to publish technology they might otherwise keep as trade secrets. This was Thomas Jefferson's reason for supporting patents. Of course, thousands and thousands of patents have been issued for things that never could be trade secrets.


I am very strongly opposed to patent law. Innovation is good because it makes labor more productive, life more enjoyable, and the previously impossible possible. This is all the encouragement it needs.
"Trade secrets," are protected by law, though, too.

[perdidochas]

gavnook wrote: Nathyn wrote: So, for instance, I was watching a documentary on soft drinks a while back, where the documenters had the chance to visit the Dr. Pepper factory. The factory manager explained the basic process behind creating soda, but then later on said he couldn't go into any more of the specific details, because Dr. Pepper's formula is secret, as well as some of the technology behind it.

Trade secrets are not the same thing as intellectual property. In fact, one given purpose of a patent system is to encourage innovators to publish technology they might otherwise keep as trade secrets. This was Thomas Jefferson's reason for supporting patents. Of course, thousands and thousands of patents have been issued for things that never could be trade secrets.


I am very strongly opposed to patent law. Innovation is good because it makes labor more productive, life more enjoyable, and the previously impossible possible. This is all the encouragement it needs.

Ideally, that would be all the encouragement needed. However, what company is going to take the risks to perfect a product, only to have it reverse engineered and copied on the cheap? Patents are needed, and they are a good thing. They have a limit of 20 yrs. No big deal. Copyrights, on the other hand, have way too long of a lifespan.

[gavnook]

perdidochas wrote: gavnook wrote: Nathyn wrote: So, for instance, I was watching a documentary on soft drinks a while back, where the documenters had the chance to visit the Dr. Pepper factory. The factory manager explained the basic process behind creating soda, but then later on said he couldn't go into any more of the specific details, because Dr. Pepper's formula is secret, as well as some of the technology behind it.

Trade secrets are not the same thing as intellectual property. In fact, one given purpose of a patent system is to encourage innovators to publish technology they might otherwise keep as trade secrets. This was Thomas Jefferson's reason for supporting patents. Of course, thousands and thousands of patents have been issued for things that never could be trade secrets.


I am very strongly opposed to patent law. Innovation is good because it makes labor more productive, life more enjoyable, and the previously impossible possible. This is all the encouragement it needs.

Ideally, that would be all the encouragement needed. However, what company is going to take the risks to perfect a product, only to have it reverse engineered and copied on the cheap?

What do you think wouldn't have been developed without patents?

[perdidochas]

gavnook wrote: perdidochas wrote: gavnook wrote: Nathyn wrote: So, for instance, I was watching a documentary on soft drinks a while back, where the documenters had the chance to visit the Dr. Pepper factory. The factory manager explained the basic process behind creating soda, but then later on said he couldn't go into any more of the specific details, because Dr. Pepper's formula is secret, as well as some of the technology behind it.

Trade secrets are not the same thing as intellectual property. In fact, one given purpose of a patent system is to encourage innovators to publish technology they might otherwise keep as trade secrets. This was Thomas Jefferson's reason for supporting patents. Of course, thousands and thousands of patents have been issued for things that never could be trade secrets.


I am very strongly opposed to patent law. Innovation is good because it makes labor more productive, life more enjoyable, and the previously impossible possible. This is all the encouragement it needs.

Ideally, that would be all the encouragement needed. However, what company is going to take the risks to perfect a product, only to have it reverse engineered and copied on the cheap?

What do you think wouldn't have been developed without patents?

A good number of drugs developed in the last 100 yrs.

[Retrouvailles]

sorry to barge into your conversation. Just curious to hear your opinions on a remedy to the patent dilemna.

on one hand companies will not perfect a drug unless they see potential profit. This means having monopoly through patent.

on the other, people may be dying because they cannot affort to pay for the high cost of these drugs. Since the drug is patented, cheaper generic brands will not be able to sprout up and meet the demands.

do you guys think this is a dilemna that has no solution?

[perdidochas]

Nathyn wrote:
I agree, of course, there needs to be a few years of protection in order to give an incentive for ingenuity, but a lifetime-and-a-half is ridiculous.

Two separate issues. 1) Patents--protection in the U.S. given for 20 yrs from date the patent is applied for. 2) Copyrights--life + 70 yrs. I agree with you on copyrights--they are too long. I disagree on patents. 20 yrs is reasonable.

[Iriemon]

Nathyn wrote: gavnook wrote: Nathyn wrote: So, for instance, I was watching a documentary on soft drinks a while back, where the documenters had the chance to visit the Dr. Pepper factory. The factory manager explained the basic process behind creating soda, but then later on said he couldn't go into any more of the specific details, because Dr. Pepper's formula is secret, as well as some of the technology behind it.

Trade secrets are not the same thing as intellectual property. In fact, one given purpose of a patent system is to encourage innovators to publish technology they might otherwise keep as trade secrets. This was Thomas Jefferson's reason for supporting patents. Of course, thousands and thousands of patents have been issued for things that never could be trade secrets.


I am very strongly opposed to patent law. Innovation is good because it makes labor more productive, life more enjoyable, and the previously impossible possible. This is all the encouragement it needs.
"Trade secrets," are protected by law, though, too.

True, but not in the same way. I could reverse engineer Coca-cola and sell it legally. Coke as no patent or legal protection on its formula.

However, its formula is its secret. It is an asset, and like any other asset, it is against the law to steal it, which generally is what trade secret laws protect.

[Iriemon]

perdidochas wrote: Nathyn wrote:
I agree, of course, there needs to be a few years of protection in order to give an incentive for ingenuity, but a lifetime-and-a-half is ridiculous.

Two separate issues. 1) Patents--protection in the U.S. given for 20 yrs from date the patent is applied for. 2) Copyrights--life + 70 yrs. I agree with you on copyrights--they are too long. I disagree on patents. 20 yrs is reasonable.

I agree, patents are a compromise. They encourage investment in new product and technologies. Companies are less likely to spend $100 million to develop a new product, if another company can copy it and sell it without having made the R&D investment. On the other hand, they discourage free competition. Its a compromise, 20 years (is that the standard patent protection? I thought it was less) may be a little on the high side, but not unreasonable, IMO.

[mathurin]

Retrouvailles wrote: sorry to barge into your conversation. Just curious to hear your opinions on a remedy to the patent dilemna.

on one hand companies will not perfect a drug unless they see potential profit. This means having monopoly through patent.

on the other, people may be dying because they cannot affort to pay for the high cost of these drugs. Since the drug is patented, cheaper generic brands will not be able to sprout up and meet the demands.

do you guys think this is a dilemna that has no solution?

lengthen the life of the patent on drugs
the reason the drug has such high costs is because the clinical trials and testing process takes up all but a few years of the patent, the company is left with a very valuable product but only a few years in which to regain the losses to research before generics swiftly drive the price down, with a longer period they could take a less agressive pricing strategy, this would fix both problems

[gavnook]

perdidochas wrote: A good number of drugs developed in the last 100 yrs.

Yes, a good number of drugs, not necessarily a number of good drugs.

[RueTheDay]

Nathyn wrote: gavnook wrote: Nathyn wrote: So, for instance, I was watching a documentary on soft drinks a while back, where the documenters had the chance to visit the Dr. Pepper factory. The factory manager explained the basic process behind creating soda, but then later on said he couldn't go into any more of the specific details, because Dr. Pepper's formula is secret, as well as some of the technology behind it.

Trade secrets are not the same thing as intellectual property. In fact, one given purpose of a patent system is to encourage innovators to publish technology they might otherwise keep as trade secrets. This was Thomas Jefferson's reason for supporting patents. Of course, thousands and thousands of patents have been issued for things that never could be trade secrets.


I am very strongly opposed to patent law. Innovation is good because it makes labor more productive, life more enjoyable, and the previously impossible possible. This is all the encouragement it needs.
"Trade secrets," are protected by law, though, too.

Trade secret laws concern the method in which such a secret is revealed, and is really just an extension of contract law (i.e., the enforecement of a non-disclosure contract). It does not, in and of itself, confer an artificial monopoly upon the holder in the way that copyright and patent law does.

[Harbinger]

a) Production is proportional to consumption, therefore, we must promote an increase in consumption in order to increase production.

b) Consumption is proportional to the population, therefore, we must increase the population in order to increase consumption.

c) Population is proportional to production, therefore, we must increase production in order to increase the population.

Thus we end up promoting overpopulation, overconsumption and overproduction until a sever lack of resources forces production down. Then, the massive populations of the world will be forced to drop as well- one way or another- until consumption falls in line with production again.

[Free Thinkr]

Harbinger wrote: a) Production is proportional to consumption, therefore, we must promote an increase in consumption in order to increase production.
Yeah, like more stuff and better stuff. Works for me.

Quote: b) Consumption is proportional to the population, therefore, we must increase the population in order to increase consumption.
Populations generally increase, so no such "promotion" is needed.

Quote: c) Population is proportional to production, therefore, we must increase production in order to increase the population.
At least, in order to keep wealth per person at the same level, yes.

Quote: Thus we end up promoting overpopulation, overconsumption and overproduction until a sever lack of resources forces production down. Then, the massive populations of the world will be forced to drop as well- one way or another- until consumption falls in line with production again.
You're playing fast and loose with the prefix "over" here. How many people constitutes "overpopulation?" How much consumption constitutes "overconsumption?" Just what is "overproduction?" Typical flawed Malthusian logic.

[gavnook]

Harbinger wrote: a) Production is proportional to consumption, therefore, we must promote an increase in consumption in order to increase production.

b) Consumption is proportional to the population, therefore, we must increase the population in order to increase consumption.

c) Population is proportional to production, therefore, we must increase production in order to increase the population.

Thus we end up promoting overpopulation, overconsumption and overproduction until a sever lack of resources forces production down. Then, the massive populations of the world will be forced to drop as well- one way or another- until consumption falls in line with production again.

Production, consumption, and population are not directly proportional. Increasing consumption will not increase production. In fact, reducing consumption will tend to lead to an increase in production because the wealth not spent on consumer goods can be invested in factors of production.

[Germanstudent]

Quote: Production is proportional to consumption, therefore, we must promote an increase in consumption in order to increase production.


This assumption is called Say's theorem. Nowadays it isn't always true.
In times of globalization, an increasing consumption in a country A, can increase the production in a other country B, so that the production in country A stays at the same level.
That is the reason, why keynesian economics nowadays is getting into the background. E.g. the american fed is now after Greenspan changing away from the anticyclically interest policy.