Intellectual property? Linchpin of free market innovation, or cause of stagnation?

[Yelram]

Okay, so Phil Theehor and I were having a short exchange over rep/private messaging dealing with intellectual property, and its place in a capitalist/free market system. My POV is that it stifles innovation, and oftentimes becomes a roadblock to new technologies. Companies buy up patents, and then bury them, so that they can keep their pockets lined, by assuring a monopoly. I believe the concept is flawed, and needs to be streamlined. Discuss..

[kid_vidrio]

I say IP is a bullshit theory concocted by bullshit lawyers to line their pockets.
It's not the knowing but the doing. If you have an idea and can't get it to market, you are diminishing the human experience (please, no arab comments here.) Moreover, any ass hat that thinks he or she is the first and only with an idea needs to carefully consider the concept of a meme that they are hoping to use to make their idea profitable.
It's like the Cartesian plane. We just got Descarte before Dehors. Was he a crook? Today's IP atty's would sue to say so wasting time and money and making it hard for the rest of to get our XY on.

[Phil Theehor]

This is a complex issue. I think "where to draw the line" is probably a more productive (and challenging) discussion because you absolutely need intellectual property rights to protect the innovators. Without them, innovation dies.

I think Yelram's objection comes more from people using the laws we have or the leverage they have to stifle innovation-- not from the fact that intellectual property exists.

I could produce a long-winded argument about the right/wrong and why someone's ideas are just as much their property as a crop that they grow. However, I can do this a lot more quickly with one example.

Look at the pharmaceutical industry. The major advances in medicine come from profit-driven, publicly-held companies. They have to spend millions (billions sometimes) to develop and test their drugs and then take them through the regulatory process. Were we to allow other companies to start producing generic versions of new drugs as soon as they got to market, research and development would cease to exist. End of story.

Everyone who bitches about paying for $20 for a 4 cent pill forgets that the company had to spend billions to get that pill to market. Is it so wrong that we pay them back for it? Would you just rather that they didn't do it at all?

[Archetype]

I'm on the fence with it. To people who haven't thought about it much, or are outside any creative industry or part of an industry, I call bullshit on plagiarism. Ideas come about because you're mixing past ideas. To constantly have to worry about your sources and not offending the people who's ideas your taking, or worse, to have to keep tabs on every place you take ideas from is a waste of energy. If your mind is on creating, you're already looking to bring something new to the markets.

But at the same time, intellectual property is exactly the protection a lot of those same innovators need so that they don't starve for using their brains. There are a lot of leachers out there, who are just waiting for someone else to come up with an idea that they have the resources to market. Some get recognition and success from other people's ideas even despite the copyright laws (first person to mention Mencia after me gets a neg).

The trouble is where to find the balance. I'm not at all happy with the way things are, you notice particular ridiculousness with aspiring comic artists. "Tracing" is almost unanimously hated, despite the fact that the MAJORITY of successful pencilers use it on a regular basis. Granted, it's one thing to trace over another artist's work and tout it as your own, it's another thing to whine and bitch because Tim Bradstreet traces photos. Tracing has been an integral part of art since the Camera Obscura came into existance. And comic art is production art, most of the time it's not even that good of quality. To have this bullshit notion of ethics that basically goes against the entire history of art, is not just annoying, it's counter-productive to advancing the art. You should be focusing on making something good, and interesting, and throwing something new into the ring, not worrying about faggot fanboys who can't draw the back of their own hand.

[Morfin]

I think the copyright protection and patent protection is absolutely vital to innovation. Yes, there will always be the Linux and Mozilla projects, but the vast majority of innovation comes from the desire to be compensated for the risk and investment in innovation.

Where Yelram's point comes into play -- and it is one I believe in 100% -- is the current abuse of the patent system. That system is broken and needs to be totally rebuilt. The use of the patent system to patent software logarithms is a great mistake that is coming to the forefront. Look at what happened to RIM. I recall about 15 years ago, Gillette came out with a new razor -- 3 blades, pivot head -- part of their marketing was that this razor contained something like 10 new patented mechanisms. Give me a break.

So, yes, IP is needed. However, the patent system is broken and needs fixing.

[kid_vidrio]

So, yes, IP is needed. However, the patent system is broken and needs fixing.
I agree with this 100% and think it would supercede the IP question.

Everyone who bitches about paying for $20 for a 4 cent pill forgets that the company had to spend billions to get that pill to market. Is it so wrong that we pay them back for it? Would you just rather that they didn't do it at all?
I'm not sure I can work with your example. First, they sell that shit for a profit in Canada and Mexico at a dime on the dollar. They just jack the price here because pill addicted 'merkans put it through insurance - another broken system.
I would submit that medicines would still get produced and profits made, but how is this IP? This is simply locating the cure for _____ which is based on scientific discovery (none of which the arabs are doing btw.) The very existence of the disease makes IP of the cure not IP.
Google's algorithms? I promise you some geek at Carnegie Mellon had them too, but Sergey and Eric pimped their shit out.
How about that tool Zuckerburg. If there was ever an IP infraction it was him, but Ventuer $$ squelched that shit. Which is to say let's dump the whole fucking thing and just work with people who get it to market.
Does this mean I favor corporate espianage to get stuff out there? No, that's theft of labor/work done, be it physical or itellectual. But should every 'original' idea get some IP protection? There is no new thing under the sun. Trying to make an industry out of IP law abrogates Solomon's law, and I like Solomon.

[Phil Theehor]

I'm not sure I can work with your example. First, they sell that shit for a profit in Canada and Mexico at a dime on the dollar. They just jack the price here because pill addicted 'merkans put it through insurance - another broken system.
I would submit that medicines would still get produced and profits made, but how is this IP? This is simply locating the cure for _____ which is based on scientific discovery (none of which the arabs are doing btw.) The very existence of the disease makes IP of the cure not IP.

I think we have a semantic problem. When I refer to the IP, I am speaking to the scientifc discovery involved in identifying the cure. The discovery of both the properties and the means with which to utilize them are the "property" that must be protected.

You might say that the knowlege existed (because they are applying known principles in their research), but the fact remains that nobody applied it. And it is the effort (and expense) that goes into developing an application that creates the ownership of that property (beyond the simple, irrefutable practical necessity).

[Stax]

I think the copyright protection and patent protection is absolutely vital to innovation. Yes, there will always be the Linux and Mozilla projects, but the vast majority of innovation comes from the desire to be compensated for the risk and investment in innovation.

Where Yelram's point comes into play -- and it is one I believe in 100% -- is the current abuse of the patent system. That system is broken and needs to be totally rebuilt. The use of the patent system to patent software logarithms is a great mistake that is coming to the forefront. Look at what happened to RIM. I recall about 15 years ago, Gillette came out with a new razor -- 3 blades, pivot head -- part of their marketing was that this razor contained something like 10 new patented mechanisms. Give me a break.

So, yes, IP is needed. However, the patent system is broken and needs fixing.

What he said. Suggesting that IP on it's face stifles innovation is dumb, as without it you would never see pharmaceutical advances or things like that where the investment is purely in discovering how to do something (and then the actual doing of it is quite cheap). The system is clearly abused, but the principle is necessary.

[kid_vidrio]

Intellectual property refers to creations of the mind: inventions, literary and artistic works, and symbols, names, images, and designs used in commerce.
Intellectual property is divided into two categories: Industrial property, which includes inventions (patents), trademarks, industrial designs, and geographic indications of source; and Copyright, which includes literary and artistic works such as novels, poems and plays, films, musical works, artistic works such as drawings, paintings, photographs and sculptures, and architectural designs. Rights related to copyright include those of performing artists in their performances, producers of phonograms in their recordings, and those of broadcasters in their radio and television programs.

The problem with strict or mis-application of IP law is that everyone walking around with an idea in their head is law suit waiting to happen. This has the ability to stifle as well.
Real IP is stuff that Tesla had that no one else has figured out yet cuz he died without telling and/or the gov'ment took all his shit and hid it. No law necessary because he was brilliant and original. That's intellectual property. A tune floating in a composer's head is IP. And when he or she writes it out and someone else steals and performs it, that's property theft.

[Insomniac]

The major scientific innovations of the 19th and 20th Centuries happened in a large part because of good patent laws. And even then, for a very long time people like Eli Whitney and Mark Twain had to spend all kinds of money just making sure they got what was their right, making sure they actually got to live off what they spent so much time, effort, and money creating.

If all of those big companies buying up patents is bad, all of those companies stealing every innovation that comes along for themselves without the actual creators getting any benefit whatsoever is far worse.

[Morfin]

The problem is not the buying up of patents, it is that patents were granted based on vague, general statements of what a software algarithm could or would do, then waiting until someone actually developed the software to do such a think and swooping in for the kill. As I cited before, see what happened to RIM.

[Phil Theehor]

The problem is not the buying up of patents, it is that patents were granted based on vague, general statements of what a software algarithm could or would do, then waiting until someone actually developed the software to do such a think and swooping in for the kill. As I cited before, see what happened to RIM.

Or look at what happens in pharma. Generic producers (Robin Hood to many of us, looters to the developers) don't spend a dime on R&D. Their entire development budget is spent on beating the creators in court-- striking down their patents. One thing I have never understood about this process (and it works all the time) is the answer to a simple question: If this ________ existed before, then why did nobody make it?

[Archetype]

This thread has taken a wrong turn. I know nothing about patents....:(

[Morfin]

Sorry. Let's see, what would Archetype know about...

Okay, I've got one.

Check out this recent Boing Boing post. Link (http://www.boingboing.net/2009/02/04/ap-tries-to-shake-do.html#previouspost)

It concerns the "Hope" poster of Obama. Shepard Fairley hand-drew the iconic poster from a copyrighted photo.
http://img.metblogs.com/la/files/2009/02/apfairey.jpg

Fair use or not?

[freegood]

Just because the internet allows broad access to privileged information doesn't mean that information should be free. Ease of use doesn't imply ownership. By making every idea or creative effort free, you're undermining one of the cultural principles of our nation.

One thing I have never understood about this process (and it works all the time) is the answer to a simple question: If this ________ existed before, then why did nobody make it?

Because the risks, costs and effort of creating and marketing the final product outweighs the risk, cost and effort of merely patenting or copyrighting the idea.

Patent and copyright trolls are annoying, but they're a part of the market. Most notorious are domain name squatters, but on the flipside, corporations rely upon the same valuations for their own IP and rightly add it upon their assets.

[kid_vidrio]

Sorry. Let's see, what would Archetype know about...

Okay, I've got one.

Check out this recent Boing Boing post. Link (http://www.boingboing.net/2009/02/04/ap-tries-to-shake-do.html#previouspost)

It concerns the "Hope" poster of Obama. Shepard Fairley hand-drew the iconic poster from a copyrighted photo.
http://img.metblogs.com/la/files/2009/02/apfairey.jpg

Fair use or not?
If he is making money off it, he probably made the necessary changes to make it his own. Notice the addition of the button and the tie color change.
I say 'fair use.'
It's a stylized version of a public figure.

[Phil Theehor]

Because the risks, costs and effort of creating and marketing the final product outweighs the risk, cost and effort of merely patenting or copyrighting the idea.

Understood. The example in my question (the model, so to speak) were newly-developed compounds/techniques that, once brought to market, were attacked by looters-- people who game the legal system to sanction their theft.

I think you are speaking to the flip side-- those who file patents for a living with no intent to commercialize anything, wait for someone to do something related to one of the patents and then show up with their hand out.

Anyway, my apologies for the digression. If we're talking about how we protect intellectual property (meaning, how do we use the patent system), the focus needs to be protecting the property of creators while avoiding the creation of tools for those who seek to profit merely by gaming the system.

Accomplishing that is probably remarkably tough. Fortunately, we have smart guys like Morfin for those kinds of jobs.

[Archetype]

Sorry. Let's see, what would Archetype know about...

Okay, I've got one.

Check out this recent Boing Boing post. Link (http://www.boingboing.net/2009/02/04/ap-tries-to-shake-do.html#previouspost)

It concerns the "Hope" poster of Obama. Shepard Fairley hand-drew the iconic poster from a copyrighted photo.
http://img.metblogs.com/la/files/2009/02/apfairey.jpg

Fair use or not?
Um, Warhol anyone? That is beyond ridiculous. Why'd it take them a year to start pushing a lawsuit? That's exactly the kind of thing that bothers me about the system.

[KennyPowers]

Intellectul propety Vs Mineral rights Im sure if you look the same tactics will be used to take away both

[Morfin]

Intellectual Property system is messed up? NAAAAHHH. /sarcasm
India moves to patent yoga poses in bid to protect traditional knowledge

India has set up a team of Hindu gurus and 200 scientists to identify all ancient yoga positions or asanas and register each one to stop "patent pirates" from stealing its "traditional knowledge".

So far, they have added 600 asanas to India's Traditional Knowledge Digital Library to stop so-called gurus in the United States and Europe patenting established poses as their own.

India has been angered at attempts by mostly American yoga teachers to patent moves from their classes as their own originals.

Since its arrival in Britain and America in the late 1960s and early 1970s, when it was popularised by Beatles guitarist George Harrison, among others, Yoga has become a $225 billion industry.

In India, however, it remains collective knowledge – practiced in public parks where gurus often teach fast breathing exercises, like pranayam, and different 'sun-salutations,' free of charge.

But as the number of Western yoga teachers has grown, there has been a steady increase in patent applications claiming each pose in their class is not part of the ancient discipline of mind and body, but their own unique invention. In the United States alone, there have been more than 130 yoga-related patents, 150 copyrights and 2,300 trademarks. Now India's Traditional Knowledge Digital Library is being made available to patents offices throughout the world so they can establish whether the claim is a genuine innovation or "prior art" from Indian systems of medicine.

So far a team of yoga gurus from nine schools have worked with government officials and 200 scientists from the Council of Scientific and Industrial Research (CSIR) to scan 35 ancient texts including the Hindu epics, the Mahabharata and the Bhagwad Gita, and Patanjali's Yoga Sutras to register each native pose.

The attempt by US teachers to patent traditional poses has caused disbelief and anger in India, where it has been practiced for around 6,000 years.

"Copyrights over yoga postures and trademarks on yoga tools have become rampant in the West. Till now, we have traced 130 yoga-related patents in the US. We hope to finish putting on record at least 1500 yoga postures by the end of 2009," said Dr V.P Gupta, of the CSIR, who created the Traditional Knowledge Digital Library. Link
(http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/india/4783753/India-moves-to-patent-yoga-poses-in-bid-to-protect-traditional-knowledge.html)

[Archangel]

My 2 cents:


Monsanto need to die horribly.

[kid_vidrio]

What about Detroit? They bought patents on auto efficiency and have burned and buried them for years. Die Detroit, Die!

[Morfin]

I am not challenging you, kid -- I am curious. Is this actually true? Or is it apocryphal?