[See Update here.]
As noted by Mike Masnick on Techdirt (post reprinted below), due to the monopoly granted by patent (yes, it is a monopoly), people are literally dying because Fabrazyme is in short supply and the sole, monopolistic manufacturer, Genzyme, can’t make enough quickly enough–and no one else is permitted to make it due to the patent. I’m sure the intellectual propergandists will callously, arrogantly, and smugly retort that without patents, Genzyme would never have invented the drug in the first place, and instead of, oh, 5,000 people dying, 20,000 would die. So saving 15,000 (I’m guessing at the numbers) is better than none, right? So the ones who die have no complaint about the patent system, since without it they’d die anyway. What a chilling mentality; and of course there is no reason to think drugs would not be invented absent patents.
If the concern here is that pharmaceutical companies need the be able to charge monopoly prices to be able to increase revenues enough to provide enough return on investment to make the original research worthwhile, wouldn’t a simpler and more direct solution be to remove the costs already imposed on them by the state–taxes, regulations, FDA process–instead of trusting that same destructive state to “help” them? The history of innovation and patenting is rife with example after example of near-simultaneous invention occurring, but the first to file (or invent, depending on the jurisdiction) gets the monopoly. Absent patents, they would all be able to take products to market. They all benefit already from the accumulated body of human knowledge that they had no role in producing. They build on the insights and discoveries of others from the past; and in the future, people will build on their discoveries being made now. What is wrong with this? Emulation and learning are good things. The market thrives on competition; competition is not possible without the freedom to emulate. When current innovation incrementally builds on knowledge from the past, when future innovation will build on knowledge from the present–it is bizarre and obscene to impose artificial limits on contemporaneous learning and sharing and emulating and competing.
Absent patents, there would be even more innovation. As Robert Weissman from Public Citizen, quoted by Masnick, notes: “ Of course there are no competing suppliers — why would any firm try to enter a market it believed closed by a patent monopoly?” Companies avoid engaging in R&D in patented markets. Of course, this is one reason patents distort the market and R&D, as explained by Rothbard and others. (See Rothbard, Man, Economy, and State and Power and Market:
“It is by no means self-evident that patents encourage an increased absolute quantity of research expenditures. But certainly patents distort the type of research expenditure being conducted. For while it is true that the first discoverer benefits from the privilege, it is also true that his competitors are excluded from production in the area of the patent for many years. And since one patent can build upon a related one in the same field, competitors can often be indefinitely discouraged from further research expenditures in the general area covered by the patent. Moreover, the patentee is himself discouraged from engaging in further research in this field, for the privilege permits him to rest on his laurels for the entire period of the patent, with the assurance that no competitor can trespass on his domain. The competitive spur for further research is eliminated. Research expenditures are therefore overstimulated in the early stages before anyone has a patent, and they are unduly restricted in the period after the patent is received. In addition, some inventions are considered patentable, while others are not. The patent system then has the further effect of artificially stimulating research expenditures in the patentable areas, while artificially restricting research in the nonpatentable areas.”
See also Arnold Plant, “The Economic Theory Concerning Patents for Inventions,” Economica, New Series, 1, no. 1 (Feb., 1934), p. 43.)
And yet, in Orwellian fashion, the intellectual properteers justify IP in the name of promoting innovation. War is peace. Sickness is health. Murder is collateral damage. And stultifying innovation is somehow promoting it!
The victims of this murderous policy in this case tried to lobby the NIH to authorize other companies to produce some more of the life-saving drug–and pay royalties to Genzyme. How is Genzyme harmed by this? They would be receiving the proceeds of a private tax levied in their favor courtesy of the USPTO. But, predictably, disgustingly, the NIH rejected the petition. There is no justification for this outrage. What the petitioners basically want is a compulsory license. The feds have the authority to grant this. There is no good reason not to. As I argue in Reducing the Cost of IP Law:
Paying royalties is one thing. This is similar to a tax. It impedes and puts a drag on efficiency. Worse still is the prospect of an injunction, which can simply shut a company down. Quite often this is what a competitor will seek. They do not want damages or money: they want to dominate the market and eliminate competition. Or the threat of injunction is used to basically wring money from an alleged infringer (e.g., the $600 million RIM (BlackBerry) had to pay, even though the patents were under appeal at the PTO, due to the threat of an injunction).
If the purpose of the patent system is to provide some incentive to innovators, then receiving a monetary payment should be sufficient. Patent injunctions should be abolished entirely. The only remedy should be an award of damages (for past infringement) or a compulsory license (ongoing royalties based on future “infringement”).
This would prevent patentees from shutting down competitors. At most, they could impose a small “tax.” Litigation costs, insurance premiums, and the ability of patentees to extract unreasonable royalties from alleged infringers would be radically curtailed. On the other hand, because patentees would still be able to seek reasonable royalties, there would still remain a substantial incentive to file for patents.
The compulsory licensing approach is not new. Some countries impose compulsory licensing on patentees who do not adequately “work” the patent.[33] The United States already provides for compulsory licensing in certain cases, as the US government threatened to do in the Cipro anthrax drug case.[34] Also, in the wake of the recent eBay case, some courts are awarding some form of ongoing royalty of compulsory license instead of an injunction.[35]
Here’s Masnick’s post:
NIH Won’t Let Others Supply Life Saving Drug Even Though Genzyme Can’t Make Enough
from the patents-costing-lives dept
Earlier this year, we wrote about the situation with a petition to the National Institute of Health (NIH) to let other companies produce Fabrazyme, a drug that treats Fabry disease. Fabry disease is an enzyme deficiency that can create very serious problems in those who have it — including kidney failure and heart attacks. Genzyme holds the patent on Fabrazyme, but has a problem: it can’t produce enough of the drug. That means people die. A group of Fabry patients petitioned the NIH to see if other companies could be allowed to produce just a little more Fabrazyme. They didn’t ask to break the patent. All they wanted was to let others make the drug, and pay Genzyme a royalty. On top of this, it’s worth noting that the key research for the development for Fabrazyme wasn’t actually done by Genzyme, but was done by the Mount Sinai School of Medicine and was financed with taxpayer money from the NIH.
At the time, we doubted the petition would be approved — and indeed, the NIH has rejected the petition. An opening was left for an appeal, if another petition is filed by a company that wants to make Fabrazyme, rather than the patients (you know, the folks actually suffering). As the statement of Robert Weissman from Public Citizen makes clear, this is a ridiculous situation:
Why is NIH resorting to legal gymnastics to avoid exercising its legal authority to ensure an adequate supply of an important medicine? NIH agrees Genzyme is failing to produce an adequate supply of the important medicine Fabrazyme. It is plain that removing the patent monopoly on the drug is a necessary condition to enabling other potential manufacturers to enter the market. Yet NIH chooses to deny a request to issue open licenses for the Fabrazyme patents — a request for which it has undisputed legal authority — on the Alice-in-Wonderland, self-justifying grounds that there are as yet no competing suppliers. Of course there are no competing suppliers — why would any firm try to enter a market it believed closed by a patent monopoly?
{ 214 comments }
I recall reading somewhere that some 75% of the cost of developing new drugs is entirely due to some government action or another. Taxes, regulations, oversight, hiring lawyers to dig through the thousands of pages of laws, general stuff all companies have to go through, etc. Certainly, a company’s first mover advantage would be plenty to recoup the costs of development if those costs were only 25% of what they were today. Reverse engineering a chemical compound isn’t easy, which is what competitors would have to essentially do to make the drug themselves. Over this period, Genzyme would enjoy a first mover monopoly advantage, a permanent head start on production efficiency, and if they did their job right, a brand recognition advantage. These three advantages are more than enough reward to offset eliminating the patent system.
@J.Murray: “Reverse engineering a chemical compound isn’t easy”
It takes about a day. Aren’t you generous? They can use it as they want.
You decide on the rest of your arguments.
Alright, go buy a dose of Fabrazyme and tell me it’s chemical makeup and structure. You have 24 hours.
I spent a year in organic chemistry before deciding to switch out due to the weakening job prospects in the field. Even if you know the elements and bonding structure, actually getting there isn’t an easy task. You have to attempt to find out how they managed to get a chemical that doesn’t exist in nature by reacting varying other chemicals under numerous variables like pressure, temperature, intermediary chemical compounds, etc, just to get to your final product. You don’t know if it’s a compound you can slap together in a half-hour or one that takes a few days of waiting under the right conditions to get the chemicals to react and bond the way you want. Even a minor miscalculation could generate a R-group instead if you desired the L-group, which have radical different effects from each other despite them being made up of identical elements.
If all you knew about the compound is that it was H2NCHCOOH, that wouldn’t be enough to tell me what the chemical bonds look like. All you would know is that’s an amino acid of some sort. Which specific one? Is it a chain or a heterocyclic? Who knows?
And that’s if you actually know the chemical make-up. Try reverse engineering a compound that only goes by a trade-name. If reverse engineering compounds were so easy, then there wouldn’t be a gigantic list of venoms and poisons that don’t have antidotes.
J,
A sequencer will do it in less than a day. If it were a small molecule, it would take an hour. And that is when we are not specialized on “reverse engineering”. Just imagine if we were.
Would you explain your last sentence? I can not get it.
Uh, sequencers are only good for one of two things:
1. DNA
2. Protein
DNA is ridiculously easy to sequence because there are only four amino acids to deal with out of the 21 known amino acids and the structure is always, without exception, a chain style double helix. Picking off each amino acid down the chain in order and quickly analyzing the property is child’s play. That’s why you can get your DNA readout by sending in a cheek swab to a company for a measly $100.
Protein sequencing is a bit more difficult. Like DNA, getting the order the amino acid is in the chain is easy, but proteins are folded in different ways and two identical protein chains can result in different folding, thus creating a different protein. This is a major reason why Folding@Home was developed. Figuring out how proteins are folded together is a monumental task and distributing computing is used to figure it out in cancer research. Some Chinese firm doesn’t have 100,000 computers linked together analyzing protein folds.
Sequencers break down once you introduce a branching compound or, God forbid, a ring. Additionally, sequencers are not capable of identifying individual elements, so if Fabrazyme isn’t a protein, good luck getting your hands on what’s it’s made of or how it’s chemical structure looks.
There isn’t a sequencer that can peel off individual elements from a compound and tell you what they are. Breaking bonds between elements can be an immensely difficult task. This is why we can’t just plug in a program into a computer and have it spit out whatever chemical compound we want by rearranging atoms. If it were possible, we’d be dealing with a level of technology only seen in Star Trek replicators. So a compound like Fabrazyme, which isn’t made up of amino acids, is basically impossible to just recreate on the fly in a day. The best available tool is a mass spectrometer, but all that does is fire off the compound at a sensor to give you a somewhat unreliable range of weights of the elements within it. Putting a known compound into a mass spectrometer won’t give you reliable results as it’s just a bar graph without the lines and numbers.
You know what the hilarious kicker is? To patent a drug, the company has to tell the Patent Office how it is made, which is public domain. I looked up Fabrazyme and it basically told me how to make the stuff (which is how I know it isn’t an amino acid based compound). It has to be out in the public, that’s the only way you can figure out if you’re not violating the patent, by comparing what you’re doing with the patent office records. Genzyme basically gave the formula away. They’d normally be better off not telling anyone how it’s made, but since the FDA and other national health regulators require that kind of information, which again is put into public domain by default, Genzyme has no choice but to use the patent office and hope laws are enough to block competitors.
J,
DNA is not made of amino acids!
Fabrazyme is a protein whatever your sources say.
You don’t have to break bonds to figure out structure. etc.
The rest of your reply is based on these and similar false “knowledge” you may want to reconsider the whole thing.
It is really hard to respond as it is so full of Bad Science (BS). But I can teach you if you are willing to learn. Are you?
You’re officially my favorite commenter here
Your argument seems to be this (since you won’t state it explicitly): it’s hard to copy someone else’s drug. Therefore, if the state adds an extra impediment, it’s possibly trivial compared to other barriers.
Even if this is true–how does this justify adding another barrier?
Oh, no no no, I’m not advocating an additional barrier. The very difficulty of copying a drug is all the protection that’s needed. The addition of all the State barriers just makes the drug far more expensive to develop, thus creating almost a circular justification for the original State barrier. It’s the classic buying a car to get to work to pay off the car paradox. Without the State barriers, drug development wouldn’t be expensive enough to warrant the State barriers.
Gotcha. Sorry for misinterpreting you.
Hey, no problem. I tend to get long winded and my message gets buried in all the extraneous words.
Are you responding to J. Murray? He’s against the patent system here.
Hey, no problem. I tend to get long winded and my message gets buried in all the extraneous words.
maybe you should stop posting then.
the structure is online: http://www.rcsb.org/pdb/explore/sequence.do?structureId=1R47
If I understand this situation correctly it isn’t really a question of drug patents but a question of gene patents. In my mind Fabrazyme is not even really a drug, it’s a protein. Genzyme doesn’t really ‘make it’, instead it probably grows genetically engineered e. coli or insect cells which produce the ‘drug’. This isn’t technology that Genzyme developed. The structure is available to the public. I don’t know who first sequenced this gene but I bet it wasn’t Genzyme. If they sent me the plasmid I could probably have 50 mg for you in 4 days and it would cost about $100 in raw materials. According to this site: http://drugbank.wishartlab.com/drugs/DB00103 Genzyme charges about $140 for 1 mg.
on J’s point, which applies to traditional (small molecule) drugs, knowing the structure of a drug doesn’t get you very far if you want to reverse engineer it. Coming up with a way to synthesize and purify it on a huge scale can take years.
I must be a touch rusty (been a few years since I picked up a chemistry book), the patent office made it look like it wasn’t a protein. My bad.
Now, what I find interesting is, if Genzyme didn’t figure it out, I wonder how they get the patent for it.
G,
That’s what generics do. They do it fast and efficiently. Also an anti-patent system would work for them as the brand names can’t afford to spend too much and have to come out simpler and simpler things. So we all become generics at the end and milk each other. And then this somehow leads to breakthrough science.
Also consider the countermeasures the brandnames have to apply to save their turf. The patent cost will be negligible to security, the generation of misleading info, obfuscation, entrappment etc, much of which would hurt the patient as well.
The “patent cost” is only trivial to the company because the rest of society is paying for it.
Society does not pay for anything, individuals do. How do you calculate cost that wouldn’t not even exist? For god’s sake, are we at Mises.org?
Even if someone else were allowed to make it, that “someone else” would have to jump through all the same regulatory hoops that Genzyme has to in order to bring the generic product to market.
So this is really an argument against pharmaceutical regulation, not against intellectual property.
As a further example, the Ontario government has recently enacted a policy outlawing “branded generics,” generic-label products produced with the consent of the patent holder.
If I recall correctly, generics don’t actually have to go through the same testing.
Quoting http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abbreviated_New_Drug_Application:
Generic drug applications are termed “abbreviated” because they are generally not required to include preclinical (animal) and clinical (human) data to establish safety and effectiveness. Instead, generic applicants must scientifically demonstrate that their product is bioequivalent (i.e., performs in the same manner as the innovator drug).
Bioavailability can be different enough to cause issues with things like epilepsy drugs, where being a little bit off can result in the return of seizures.
Generic drug applications are termed “abbreviated” because they are generally not required to include preclinical (animal) and clinical (human) data to establish safety and effectiveness. Instead, generic applicants must scientifically demonstrate that their product is bioequivalent….
perform in the same manner and be identical in compsition???
Perhaps it could be produced in the third world. Because of the outcry over the extremely high price of anti-AIDS drugs, I believe that a loophole was created to allow poor countries to declare a “health emergency” and then produce their own knockoffs of patented drugs. Laughably, the first use of this loophole that I am aware of happened in Egypt, where the local authorities declared an emergency and started producing a generic version of a certain electile dysfunction remedy that starts with a “V”.
I’ve already answered this for you, Stephan_Kinsella. Did you forget? Yes, lifting FDA requirements would reduce costs (though obviously a drug would have to go through some kind of certification before anyone would want to use it). But since the low-hanging fruit is picked first, the “natural” costs of development necessarily increase over time.
At some point, development cost *without* the FDA would be the same as they are today *with* the FDA. What’s your excuse then?
The rest is just assertion, and you never get around to explaining why the patent holder isn’t just licensing others, or why it would be a good idea to save lives now at a cost of scaring off more innovation later.
(Btw, when I explained this phenomenon in another context — mutualists whining about how the lack of cheap land cripples their ability to show how asesome their ideas are — you agreed with me, but it was the same point.)
Silas, how does your blabber change the fact that patent law is causing people to die? The patent law that you support? Terrible.
You said it yourself — without patent law, there’d be even more deaths.
How does your blabber change the fact that “by not looting the rich, we’re leaving the starving people of the world to die”? Well, I’d probably answer the same way you would.
Do you believe in what you are saying or you are just hustling? I just askin because you are posting on Mises.org. Since when is the objective of a capitalist organisation or the whole system to save lives? Did you run out of arguments to sink to propaganda and demagoguery?
People die because of their diseases. The same way you can blame scientist that they did not discover it earlier. But that line would lead to what you already ignored offhand: These drugs would not even be discovered without a patent system! Researchers, capitalists, managers wouldn’t even get a chance to collaborate and pursue such a complicated task. The same way as double entry bookkeeping was the trigger to the birth of capitalism the system that allows for entering ideas as assets, even temporaryly in accounting is responsible for the collaboration in the field of ideas. I am sure it can be improved but it is needed for collaboration. Of course, only if you want collaboration.
Your line “there is no reason to think drugs would not be invented absent patents” will need a positive proof as well unless you consider spells, magic potions, snake oils as drugs. Denying and ignoring will not work.
>At some point, development cost *without* the FDA would be the same as they are today *with* the FDA. What’s your excuse then?
No, you are wrong. For example, creating your own UNIX kernel and OS in the 1980′s would probably cost 100 million dollars, but today it costs less than $1 to get a copy of the Linux kernel and to modify it to suit your needs, and people do it all the time. With out IP liabilities, people can collaborate and share in ways that are literally 1000 times more productive. That is a copyright example, but it is also true with patent. In fact, a long time ago interfaces were patented, but that caused so much grief that they stopped doing it. In fact, that’s why AMD and Compaq were able to fend off the huge IBM and Intel lawsuits that lasted for years. Did the PC industry fall apart because nobody could patent their interfaces any more? Did the internet fall part because nobody could patent their network connection interfaces? Nope, the common portability caused both sectors to go ballistic.
Those aren’t organic molecules.
Ahh, so you admit that there is a difference between the tangible and the intangible when it comes to treatment as property?
The level we deal with!!
I keep trying to make the argument that patents are genocidal, but it never seems to get traction. I think the history is clear, and over time they will become an unbearable force that make the antics of the copyright cartel look like a love fest.
It never gets traction, David_C, because your argument would just as well prove that “property rights kill billions” because we could save the starving people of the world by looting the haves.
Since you’re unwilling to take your own argument that seriously, why should we?
more dishonest stuff: you equate looting real property, with not-having-state-granted-monopolies. In other words, you are calling using ideas “looting.” This is dishonest question-begging.
It is relevant for the context I presented it in, given the specific premises and argument structure he used. Look at it again. And please don’t change the topic by reverting to whatever talking point you feel like.
Uh, nope. I think you mean to say that it would just as well prove that a “copy of everybodies property rights kill billions”.
>Since you’re unwilling to take your own argument that seriously, why should we?
Because unlike you, I rationally consider scarcity in regards to the definition of property.
“Uh, nope. I think you mean to say that it would just as well prove that a “copy of everybodies property rights kill billions”.”
No, I meant what I said.
Let’s go over this a little bit slowly so I can bring you up to the level of abstract thought this discussion requires: you point out that voiding patents could, for that patent, save lives. I note that this is a special case of the (non-interesting) general phenomenon that voiding rights on which people have predicated productive activity can allow more people to enjoy the fruits of this productive activity, though it will lead to less such productive, as it cannot be predicated on that right.
In this respect, your point is no different from arguing that we could feed the poor if we could just loot the rich. In a *different*, irrelevant respect, you could be right, but not this one.
“I’m sure the intellectual propergandists will callously, arrogantly, and smugly retort that without patents, Genzyme would never have invented the drug in the first place, and instead of, oh, 5,000 people dying, 20,000 would die. So saving 15,000 (I’m guessing at the numbers) is better than none, right? So the ones who die have no complaint about the patent system, since without it they’d die anyway. What a chilling mentality”
Reminds me of the mentality that says that people who can’t afford healthcare, or housing, or food should find a private charity or die, because otherwise they might have to pay taxes, and that’s truly evil. And the market is always better for the poor in the end, since those that survive get rich slightly faster than if economic efficiency were sacrificed to provide them with the necessities of life.
Callous, arrogant, and smug indeed.
Robert, it is not callous to protect property, and to refrain from stealing from A to give to B. Theft is not good.
This is exactly why we oppose the patent system: it amounts to theft: Genzyme gets to tell competitors how to use their own property.
We oppose them all, for the same reasons.
What about Genzyme telling everybody how to do it? That is not a big price for a few years of “monopoly”. They will solve the impurity issues soon and production will come back. On the other hand if they allow others to do it without control they could be blamed for others’ mistakes. You just can’t please the mob!
Shire will come out soon with another (patented) alternative so even more patients can be saved. Everyone is happy, just this damned patent system is still there.
“What about Genzyme telling everybody how to do it?”
There is no reason to think that this is the case or that it was necessary.
“That is not a big price for a few years of “monopoly”. They will solve the impurity issues soon and production will come back.”
ONly a few hundreds of people dead in the meantime. Small price to pay.
No, actually millions are dead meantime and you can blame all of them on IP. Can’t you see how ridiculous you are? I just asking because you are posting on Mises.org: Since when is the objective of a capitalist organization or the capitalist system to save lives? Did you run out of arguments to sink to this level of propaganda and demagoguery?
if a capitalist system is more akin to mans life than anon capitalist system life saving would seem to be implicit in the system
Not implicit but a consequence. If you try to force it you end up with unintended consequences.
Oops. Changing the argument parameters? If a group of desperate hungry people are raiding a farm and the farmer shoots them all dead? Uh oh, property rights kill people therefore it is evil!
Quite frankly if a company has a patent on drug that saves now saves 15,000 per year, it a bargain. I would think it would be evil if indeed a company would not bother to produce the drug because they can’t recopu their costs and letting an extra 15,000 keep dying per year.
there is no reason to think that the 15,000 would not be saved sans a patent system.
Genzym is good for saving 15,000. but that does not mean the state has the right to stop competitors from making more of it to save the other 5,000. this is really very simple.
The only reason is that it has never happened before. You are chasing a unicorn.
Patents are holding back the existence of unicorns too!!! Free the alicorn[1]!!!
[1] The horn on a unicorn.
Not implicit but a consequence. If you try to force it you end up with unintended consequences.”"”"
unintended consequences can happen anytime.
“This is exactly why we oppose the patent system: it amounts to theft: Genzyme gets to tell competitors how to use their own property.
We oppose them all, for the same reasons.”
is that really what the patent system does??? or does it keep an ideal creation (an idea) from being experienced in a way the the initiator of the ideal (pattern, etc) didnt want to occur????
ie, i dont want ‘your’ bologna in ‘my’ blender and i dont want ‘my’ (the ideal thing from my brain) song lyrics sung by you unless i say so. now you could sing my lyrics and you possibly could get bologna into my blender…..the only observable difference being you could sing ‘my’ lyrics and i wouldnt notice but if i go to use my blender and there is bologna in it i cant use it.
if the constitution says to ‘secure’ writings and discoveries….are they meaning secure as in how one would secure a real property use.
Reminds me of the mentality that says that people who can’t afford healthcare, or housing, or food should find a private charity or die
The mentality around here is that, in the absence of more than a century’s-worth of restriction of the supply of health-related goods by a gang of armed thugs (permitting the training of a limited number of doctors, licensing a limited number of hospitals, patenting of pharmaceuticals, etc.), these goods and services would be produced in a supply that more closely matches demand, and thus be cheaper and more plentiful, and of better quality.
Cures for cavities (carie vaccines) have been around for years. The latest one trying to get past the FDA is Jeffrey Hillman’s SMaRT that he started trying to commercialize in 1996. So thank the FDA and US Patent Office for any cavities you’ve had. linky>
I guess Hillman tried to patent it before 1996 then. The patent expires after 18 years. So your wish is almost granted already. Instead of this anti-IP misdirection we should focus on getting rid of the FDA.
In software terms, the FDA is a patch for some of the bugs introduced by the IP patch, although it introduces bugs of its own worse than the IP bugs, which are worse than before, etc.
Hmm, interesting metaphor–how do you get this? I would think it’s other way around: IP is a patch for FDA: FDA imposes costs, patent monopoly helps you get some of it back by charging monopoly price.
The march of time also imposes costs, as you have to search super-exponentially growing domains to find a useful design. What’s the non-IP patch for costs produced *this* way? And how does it differ from the increasing real estate prices that mutualists use to explain away the failure of their ideas?
I know you don’t have an answer or never will, I just like seeing you squirm.
probably a fake story as so much is on this site. but if it is true then it seems that forcible or even attempted info and compound restriction for vital life saving medicines would be a negative as far as peaceful market operations are concerned.
i suppose a pharma research industry could arise/get funding in the absense of the claimed intellectual property restrictions with a type of research-retainer system, and likely many other ways. ie, utilizing pharm students for lab work as college payment, etc.
You take these medicines granted. They are a results of human efforts so it is absolutly amoral to treat them as nature given. All the restrictions are only temporary, a patent life is 18 years much of it is wasted on the development process. Is that such a big price for all the innovation? From another perspective. You can have all the inventions of 20 years and older try to deal with them, they are unrestricted!
You need the best and not the cheapest for quality research. Moreover, what prevents them from selling it out to the competition? According to anti-IP, ideas has no value consequently no damage was done! Without a value system there is no research, cooperation in the field of new ideas.
Your suggestion for labor has not considered this.
“You take these medicines granted. They are a results of human efforts so it is absolutly amoral to treat them as nature given.”
Who’s “treating them” as “nature-given”? This is typical disingenuous wording to masque the socialism of your programme. Only if you *assume* that non-nature-given information must be “treated differently” than … other information, i.e., that it should be patented, would anyon wonder why they should NOT be treated “as nature given.” So you are just dishonestly question-begging. Every IP proponent does this. It’s really pathetic. Question-begging is your m.o.
” All the restrictions are only temporary,”
and only 5,000 will die. I mean that’s not that many, really.
“You can have all the inventions of 20 years and older try to deal with them, they are unrestricted!’
Right, and wouldn’t it be better if it was 10 instead? Or 5? or … zero?
“According to anti-IP, ideas has no value consequently no damage was done! ”
Sigh. More blatant dishonesty or stupidity. There is no property right in value. Damage only counts if it’s aggression. Helloooo. Competition damages your competition! So what?
You are. It’s like this: Let’s say I make a Kinsellian contract with Bob where if Bob builds me a fence, 2000 of my dollars transfer to his ownership. Bob builds the fence. The contract says that Bob is the rightful owner of the dollars.
But then I say, wait: if I fulfill this contract, I can’t spend my $2000 saving lives! By worshiping this contract god, I am consigning innocent children to death! Contracts are directly responsible for death! If only we could void these stupid contract rules, I could save lives!
You would correctly point out that, well, you only have your fence built in the first place because of the agreement with Bob.
Your IP argument in this case would be like saying, “okay, sure, Bob *hypothetically* might not have built the fence had he not been promised that conditional 2000 … but then, he might have built it anyway! Who knows? People do labor for free all the time. It’s just idle, utilitarian speculation that this welfare improving action might not have happened but for contracts.
You’re treating this invented drug just like the fence labor — treating it as “just given”, ignoring the things its very existence was predicated on. Otherwise, how can you justify denying the producer of that good the rights they found necessary to justify undertaking the task? You can’t. And so it looks like free money, free life-saving to stiff that greedy inventor or laborer, when it is no such thing — it’s a gaping hole in your ideology.
I don’t expect you to get any of this. You’re just going to pattern-match it, like you usually do, to your favorite sound bites and talking points, maintaining the same inconsistent position and implausible economic model that you always do. If people can’t have exclusive usage rights for their inventions, well, gosh, you’re pretty durn sure that they’ll keep blowing money on the inventions and make the profit … um, somehow. Or maybe all inventions will just be charity! Whatever, as long as you don’t have to reconcile your beliefs…
Nice story, Silas. Here’s another:
A small town takes a vote and it is decided that Bob will be granted a monopoly contract on fence-building. This ensures that Bob is able to charge high enough rates to keep his business going so that there will always be someone around to provide the crucial service of fence-building.
Over the years, the little town’s quaint country environment attracts many more people to move there, and poor Bob just can’t keep up with demand, and he has a backlog of over a year of fences to build. This is partially offset by the fact that Bob’s high rates cause many to forgo having a fence built at all.
One day, several respected members of the town call a meeting to discuss the matter. Some argue that they should have a right to at least build their own fences if Bob isn’t able to get to them in a timely manner. One plucky young farmer even offers to help out by building fences for the people on Bob’s waiting list and giving him a share of the profits. The mayor, who had hurried to the meeting upon hearing of it, calls for silence as Bob himself gets up on the platform. Bob gives an impassioned speech about how important fences are to the community, and how, without the proper incentives in place, Bob couldn’t possibly put in the time and effort necessary to ensure that the town’s fencing needs are served. He asks for the community’s support and pledges to do everything he can to meet their needs.
In the crowd, amid the heartfelt shouts of support for Bob, one boy sitting up on his father’s shoulders suddenly shouts, “Does this mean we still can’t have a fence to keep our cows in?” Grumblings of confusion begin to grow in the crowd, the mayor quickly takes the stage, thanks Bob for his years of hard work and dedication, and calls the meeting to a close.
Scott, this is brilliant. I think I’m in love.
Scott_D:
See, this is the problem with IP opponents: you ignore the very heart of the issue from the moment you begin your counterargument.
The analogy breaks in that Bob was not the reason that fence building exists in the first place. If he were the discoverer of a complex fence production method that no one would have any idea of how to replicate but for being told by Bob, then it differs significantly from the case of an arbitrary government monopoly. Indeed, this situation is exactly the one for which IP advocates want IP, so none of your comparisons carry over: for example, while people could still build fences if not for Bob’s monopoly, people wouldn’t know the special fence method but for Bob’s generation of the new idea (created on the *expectation* of being able to have exclusivity in it). Such a monopoly only deprives people of rights they were no able to exercise without the monopoly in the first place!
At this point, IP opponents typically are unable to distinguish between this as a hypothetical situation and what implications can be drawn from this hypothetical ingenuity, vs. the argument over whether there could have been a non-IP method, some way, somehow. But it’s clear to me that, and any reasonable person, that it is no monopoly to have exclusive rights in a method that only exists because of you, for the same reason it’s no monopoly to have exclusive control over whether your body is used for a specific kind of labor. To the extent that its a monopoly, it’s only in a trivial, useless sense.
Don’t get hung up on the word “monopoly”; focus on *what* it is you deem bad about monopolies and whether they apply here.
@Stephan_Kinsella: that just shows how low your standards are. Any argument voiced against IP immediately becomes golden in your eyes, no matter how bad it is, no matter how many crucial distinctions it ignores.
What if, when the monopoly on fence-building was granted to Bob, no one else in the area had the equipment or knowledge for building fences, and only realized how simple it was when they saw Bob putting them up? What if Bob only agreed to go into fence-building on condition of a monopoly grant. Does that justify the monopoly?
Lots of things are the way they are “because of you”. Your metabolism requires you to respirate and to consume food and excrete waste. Just your appearance in a public setting causes subtle changes in the world and the people around you. Those changes spread well beyond your immediate perception and could continue to affect people years from now. This is simply causality. Patents are an attempt to harness the far-reaching effects of causality for profit.
Monopolies are bad because they require an act (or multiple acts) of aggression. It applies.
“people wouldn’t know the special fence method but for Bob’s generation of the new idea (created on the *expectation* of being able to have exclusivity in it). Such a monopoly only deprives people of rights they were no able to exercise without the monopoly in the first place!”
Silas, you stupid fucking cunt. The right the other people have is not to build a fence as such (which we can grant they wouldn’t know how to do until the original fence maker revealed the idea to the world), but rather the right to do whatever they want with their property provided they violate no other property right. It continues to amaze me how ignorant you are of utterly basic points in this debate.
You say the fence maker assembles factors of production he owns (into the fence) only under the expectation of being able to prevent *others* from likewise doing so with factors of production *they* own. In other words, under the expectation that he will be granted an ownership right in those factors himself. You are essentially saying that by copying the fence maker, the later fence makers are violating the original fence makers property right in goods he has not homesteaded. Put differently: you are saying homesteading is not sufficient to establish ownership rights (rights to exclusive control) because some inventor may have previously assembled *other* property in such a way that allows copying. But by what right did the inventor do this initial assembling himself, if not by basis of using homesteaded goods?
Please resolve this contradiction. You’ve been asked repeatedly to defend this theory of property rights you implicitly adopt. Why are you such a fucking coward?
Silas,
No, you ignore the very heart of the issue, which is a self-contradiction. You of course also ignore the secondary issues, such as the lack of definitions, use of metaphors, flawed economics and mixing normative and positive arguments. But why am I even bothering? It’s long clear that you have no interest in a scholarly discourse, but in preaching.
@Scott_D:
Depends. But first, are you bringing this up because you’re trying to argue that because others might not have had a “fair chance” at developing some good idea, the specifics of that case can be applied to all instances of invention and thus prove that everyone *really* would have come up with the same idea, and so IP is keeping them from doing something they could have done anyway?
Because if that was your point, I think it fails about 50 different ways.
Not at all. I wouldn’t presume to know if or when anyone might independently do anything. The possibility is there at any time for someone to spontaneously take up the idea of building fences, but we cannot know what that chance is. I only acknowledge that, at the time Bob was granted his monopoly, he was the only one willing and able to do it.
It’s less than what would have died had the inventor *not* been able to invent and have exclusivity in the invention … so I guess that makes you the pro-death one?
Is it really hard to see what’s wrong with your entire line of reasoning? Physical property rights could be voided *today* to increase some other people’s welfare. Does that mean it’s a good idea? Or does it mean you can create temporary prosperity for some at the cost of destroying the very social mechanism that make long-term prosperity possible.
You can see how physical property rights lead to abundant wealth, and support their enforcement, even at the cost of starving people who would like to steal some property. What makes the situation with inventions different? In both cases, they take wealth from the rich and give it to the poor. Is that your *thang* now?
And is it really that hard to understand what’s wrong with yours?
Ok, I get it, we both disagree with utilitarian approaches. That does not fix your core problem though: you get confused by metaphors and contradict yourself. You’re also an intellectual coward, which although not an argument to refute you, is an argument not to waste time with you.
Wait, just so we’re clear, I refuted the idea that lives can be saved by voiding this patent because of the analogous situation with respect to voiding physical property rights to feed the poor?
I’d say we’re making some progress!
That’s not “an idea”. That’s just a demonstration that IP has costs, a “feature” utilitarian proponents of IP ignore. Of course, Stephan knows that utilitarian arguments are not a part of the Austrian methodology, but there are people who don’t accept that. That’s why, yet again, you completely miss the point.
“It’s less than what would have died had the inventor *not* been able to invent and have exclusivity in the invention … so I guess that makes you the pro-death one?”
How do you know this? Most inventions come when their time has come. AND, many patents are issued when they “should not be”, even by the standards of patent law–that is, they are not really inventions. I mean how do YOU know, in THIS case, that the invention would not be here “but for” patent law? Because the PTO says so? Do you trust the state?
@Stephan_Kinsella:
Uh huh. Yeah, what an amazing coincidence there, that inventions just fall out of the sky when their nebulous “time has come”. Kinda like how bread just automagically hits the store shelves when *its* time has come, when people want to get them some o’ that bread. It just POPs into existence.
Never mind the *social norms* and *expectations of respect for rights* that these activities are predicated on. No, property rights have nothing whatsoever to do with Paris’s stores always having bread on hand. Nosirree, it’s the magical “time has comeness” that makes wanted goods magically appear, and we don’t have to worry about any messy concept of “rights” to ensure that this stuff happens. It’s just magic. Don’t ask questions. Just expect it to fall out of the sky.
And many physical property rights are enforced by the state when they “should not be”. Does that make property rights a creature of the state? Does that mean that everyone who supports physical property rights must be in favor of all these stupid physical property rulings, and that they must trust the state to accurately define and enforce property rights? No, because that would be stupid, and you can easily see why.
Well, then the same is true for IP. Consistency please, Stephan_Kinsella.
Silas, are you even aware that in most patent cases, the defendant HAS NOT COPIED the patented invention?
http://blog.mises.org/11076/common-misconceptions-about-plagiarism-and-patents-a-call-for-an-independent-inventor-defense/
@Stephan_Kinsella: Is that the right ratio to be looking at?
If we imagine a world where my hypothesis is right, each new idea comes from a relatively small number of people capable of developing it. People who use it mostly didn’t develop it on their own — and when they find out about it because of the patent-holder or their licensees, they immediately realize they shouldn’t bother making it on their own, because there’s a patent, and they’d be sued, and they really didn’t come up with the idea themselves.
This ENORMOUS class of potential cases never reaches court, because everyone knows how it will turn out.
But a few people, on occasion, do independently discover it (and I and most IP supporters think this should be a valid, if tough to prove, defense). These cases are much more likely to go to court.
So if you just look at the set of court cases, you’ll (incorrectly) conclude that, “Golly gee, every idea gets discovered by everyone at once!” But you’d be wrong: court selects for the “hard cases”, where an independent discoverer can show e.g. obviousness.
It would be completely incorrect to consider these court cases as representative of the ease of coming up with new, useful ideas, as you seem to do.
The correct comparison would be the ratio of inventors (including independent, non-patent ones) to the *entire set* of people who use new inventions, as these people most certainly wouldn’t have discovered it on their own.
And that metric goes very far against you.
By the way, how many cases are there where two book texts were independently discovered? Yeah, that’s what I thought.
Silas,
Apart from missing a point, you also miss that your economic arguments are based on very strange economic assumptions, such as the absence of opportunity costs, the inability to calculate in the absence of a monopoly, just to mention a few. So I would not recommend you attempting to make economic arguments before fixing your theory.
Inventions build upon prior discoveries and inventions. For example, the invention of the triode vaccum tube and (subsequently) the transistor, would be extremely unlikely without reliable generation of electricity. Could the transistor have been invented before the triode vacuum tube? Possibly, but unlikely. Vacuum tubes are much simpler to manufacture. The integrated circuit, however, could never have come about before transistors. The design limitations of vacuum tubes meant that they could never become small enough to entertain the idea of packing dozens of them onto a chip.
Was the integrated circuit an amazing innovation? Yes, of course. But it was really just an answer to the question of how components in a logical circuit could be packed into a tighter space. I’m not saying that its discovery was inevitable, but it became ever more likely after the discovery and continuing improvement of transistors.
The relevance (of either of your points) would be …?
And in case you didn’t realize it after your post, Peter_Surda, economic calculation *is* impossible in the absence of a monopoly, for certain kinds of monopoly. How do I know what to do with the strawberries I harvested if I don’t have a monopoly in that set of strawberries (and everyone else in their own strawberries).
Sorry, the issue’s a little more complex than your sound bites: you have to know what definition of monopoly is economically relevant, why that one rather than others, what the consequences are, etc. You don’t just get to say “I deem your patent on your new invention to be a monopoly and therefore bad, and I deem your ownership of that set of strawberries to be a non-monopoly and therefore good, so by definition property rights are good and IP bad.”
It really, really doesn’t work like that. Sorry.
test
“economic calculation *is* impossible in the absence of a monopoly, for certain kinds of monopoly. ”
It shouldn’t come as much of a suprise that the economic calculation debate is yet another subject Silas does not understand. The issue concerns the absence of *markets*, not the absence of “certain kinds of monopoly” (whatever those are). And specifically the absence of *capital goods* markets. Again not surprisingly, this strawberry example is completely irrelevant.
Beefcake: Markets = mechanisms for exchange of property rights
Property rights = monopolies in specific narrow goods
Again, unpack the term monopoly. See if you can phrase your position without it. If you can’t, well, I didn’t expect as much of you anyway.
“Again, unpack the term monopoly. ”
It would be better for you to use the term properly. You are clearly using “monopoly” in an idiosyncratic manner, simply for the purpose of playing games with analogies and avoiding hard debate.
Silas,
Both definitions are flawed. They actually point out to deeper theoretical flaws in the IP theories, like the assumption that immaterial goods can be sold without selling material goods or services, and the assumption that immaterial goods have an identity. Since you have shown no interest in addressing these issues, although it has been pointed out several times, I don’t think you will do that ever, but at least I can help others who might be misled by the use of metaphors.
Now you are using the convoluted language again. First of all, you pulled out of nowhere “certain kinds of monopoly”. What is that? Ah yes. It’s magic dust that makes arguments work.
Apart from that, even if we disregard the magic, the argument is still flawed. There is no need to have any sort of monopoly in order to utilise calculation in rational decision making. Future is always uncertain. Entrepreneurs bet that they can predict it better than others, and make arrangements for that. From this point of view, the distribution of property rights has no effect on the theory, assuming there are no resources uncovered by property rights. Some IP proponents make the core flaw in assuming that without IP, there are uncovered resources. A certain Silas_Barta actually admitted this flaw, but then magically forgot that it invalidates his whole argument.
On another level, Roy Cordato introduced the concept of catallactic efficiency and came to the conclusion that the distribution should be as understandable as possible. Since IP proponents have been unable to explain what IP actually is, I fail to see how they can argue IP contributes to efficiency. Sorry, I forgot. Magic will ensure it’s more efficient.
you look in a future
ahaha
“It’s less than what would have died had the inventor *not* been able to invent and have exclusivity in the invention ”
how you calculated that?
Genzyme is a corporation, therefore can have no rights, nor can any argument based property rights be applied to it. The whole discussion is a waste.
Am I missing something here? We are talking about property rights. Patents exist for millions of items: TV’s, drugs, lawnmowers, etc. Yet there are all kinds of TV’s, drugs and lawnmowers available to choose from.
I also fail to see how patents create monopolies. In fact I would say in a free market it is impossible to create a monopoly. Some one will always build a better widget if they see a market for it. Monopolies are only possible through government force.
TimUwe
“I also fail to see how patents create monopolies.”
If I patent something, then I have a monopoly in regards to that item. You re not allowed to produce and sell that item unless I allow it. If you, using your resources, produce an item I regard as similar or the same as mine, I defend my monopoly by taking you to a government court to force you to cease and desist. I can ruin your business and get money out of you for the sin of interfering with my monopoly. I employ the power of government interference in the market to attain my objective- preservation of my monoply.
“In fact I would say in a free market it is impossible to create a monopoly.”
This is true and correct. It implies that there would be no such thing as a patent, since the presence of patents requires the presence of an entity to control the market and such control contradicts the fundamentals of a free market.
“Some one will always build a better widget if they see a market for it.”
Assuming they are not prevented from doing it.
Levin and Boldrin (in their book about patents) demonstrate what happens when the device of the patent is used to defeat the emergence of the innovative in order to defend the interests of patent holders (the established statuts quo). They illustrate the problem with the story of Watt and the steam engine.
“Monopolies are only possible through government force.”
Yes, that is true enough. And patents are an expression of government coercion and force.
Sione
Silas is a complete troll. If patents were not monopolies then supplicants would not want them. This is not hard at all.
Stephan_Kinsella is a complete troll. If property rights were not monopolies then supplicants would not want them. This is not hard at all.
Silas, isn’t there a geography website you could hang out on and talk about how flat the earth is?
Doesn’t matter if people want them or not, people HAVE property rights. Analogy fail, ass-hat.
Property rights are not a monopoly. Or, to be more precise: property rights do not create monopolies. They explain which of the mutually exclusive options is “just”. Monopolies, on the other hand, explain which of the mutually non-exclusive options is “just”. If options are non-exclusive, the whole metaphysical argumentation fails, because it explains why it is something that people made up, as opposed to something that exists. Once you drop the requirement of non-exclusivity, you can make up any rules to connect the actions of alleged monopoly. You can just as well argue that, for example, if I blow my nose, that should allow me to prevent other people from selling apples. These options are not mutually exclusive, instead I make up a term to refer to both of them, e.g. “blowpple” and claim a monopoly on that. It’s a metaphor, not science.
*BZZT* My property right in the clothes I’m wearing is a monopoly on that set of clothes.
Try to make substantive differences rather than superficial ones: ask what makes a “monopoly” bad, and if *that aspect* of monopolies applies here. That’s how to reason properly.
No, it’s not. Again you fall prey to metaphors. You think that immaterial objects have an identity. “Blowpple” is a monopoly. IP is a monopoly. Property is not.
Try to argue instead of evading.
Why should I ask what makes a monopoly bad? That’s a normative question and therefore completely irrelevant for the purposes of our debate. Rather, you should start arguing properly and fix the logical fallacies in your claims.
And that, folks, is why I don’t bother to try untangling Peter_Surda’s arguments. If someone can rephrase whatever point might be hidden in there, I’ll gladly respond
Nice trick Silas, but I’m long unimpressed by your attempts to avoid debate.
Peter is saying that property rights are not monopolies because they apply to only specific objects, while IP is a monopoly because it applies to a class of objects.
When England granted a “monopoly of fur trading” (in a given area) to a company the point of the monopoly was not that the company had exclusive rights to sell furs it already owned, the point was that nobody else had the right to sell any furs regardless of who owned them.
Similarly, when the government grants a monopoly over the right to sell “edged objects for cutting food”, they are not granting a person the exclusive right to sell their own edged objects (that would be an example of property), they are saying that nobody else has the right to sell “edged objects” regardless of who owns them.
“Property” applies to specific objects, “monopoly” applies to classes of objects (or ideas).
That is a “substantive difference” and I hope that you will address it.
Hi conclusion, mind if I assume you for a minute?
Thanks Anthony,
you showed that Silas is playing a game and it does not take a superhuman effort to get it. The interpretation is imprecise but in general you got it.
Maybe if I rephrase into a different angle: monopoly makes actions which were mutually inexclusive illegal. Conversely, eliminating monopoly makes actions which are mutually inexclusive legal. Property though applies to mutually exclusive actions. With or without property rights, one apple cannot be consumed by two people. Eliminating property rights does not make simultaneous consummation legal, because it still remains impossible.
This shows a clear distinction between property rights and monopoly. Silas, on the other hand, showed no distinction between IP and my example of “blowpple”. Instead confronting the issue how can mutually inexclusive actions share an identity, Silas makes up new definitions, which are not even consistently applicable to anything.
I don’t understand how Stephan, let alone the choir, is qualified for any scientific discurse. He constantly violates the rule of “don’t use your hypothesis as a proof for your argumentation”. He does not even look for proofs in a scientific sense but just reorganizes and selects factoids that seemingly verifies his thesis while ignores everything against it. What differentiates his proposal and scientistic method from social engineering?
I have no problem with that. Several times I said homesteading is arbitrary, homesteading of ideas are no exception either. He can argue for zero on the arbitrary scale, just don’t call it “scientific”. His is only one way to looking at IP but not The Way. We all have a view and consensus will prevail, as with all things arbitrary. Meanwhile keep engineering!
That’s not the issue, the issue is self-contradiction in your claims, which you so far showed no interest in resolving.
Where do you see contradictions above?
Not above. In the past. Where you said that you want people to respect both physical property and IP. However, since they contradict each other, your request is impossible. How do you plan on fixing that?
Peter,
Now we have a red herring.
Even if your statement were true is it relevant if I am right above?
By the way, could you give me a universal property definition?
Andras,
you are avoiding addressing a core error in your claims. Discussing anything else is meaningless, as the reference to the principle explosion explains. Of course, it looks like you didn’t get it.
Peter,
Are you arguing with yourself? Would you ever admit if you were wrong? I have made the mistake not asking this at the beginning. If you can’t the whole debate is hopeless.
I can’t help but agree with Silas on you.
Andras,
I have pointed out a fatal flaw in your argument, you avoid addressing it, and instead complain that I allegedly am arguing with myself? Hmm, that’s a new one.
Show me the error in my argument and I will admit I was wrong. Now, I did show a fatal error in your argument. Why are you not admitting you were wrong?
Some people seem to participate in debates in order to assert their beliefs and that creates a bias. On the other hand, I debate in order to find the truth (or, as a falsificationist, to find the falsehood). I don’t see an issue with being proved wrong, on the contrary, that furthers my understanding. There are actually several posts throughout the time I have been posting on the blog that indeed demonstrate that I did just that: I recognised the errors in my argument and incorporated the knowledge thusly created into my understanding. I have also become more strict in the separation of assumptions and conclusions, trying to phrase my arguments in a way that proves that my opponents contradict themselves, without this depending on any assumptions I am making.
No matter how confused or outraged you feel, that does not fix the problem of you contradicting yourself. If you do not want to resolve the contradiction, then just say so so that I will know to ignore you in the future.
Peter,
I don’t see this as fatal flaw. It may contradict to you or your definition but I can accept the non superiority of physical property. As there can be conflict between two physical properties, the same way, I can accept conflict between physical and intellectual property. I know this is a compromise but I have no problem with it.
Here is an example. The drug formula I create has never been attempted to make especially for the cure of a disease. No-one would want to build it without the knowledge I have as it would be just one of the million ways of wasting the starting materials and intermediates. Yes, they could have made it but they have chosen not to before. So I did not take anything from them as they did not have it. Actually, I gave them something, a potential to use their existing resources for something they would have never applied to. Yes, they can have a reason to make it now. A few years of delay from them is what I expect for return. They don’t have to honor it but they will as they understand that I made them richer by expanding their abilities and want me to do it again so they can be even richer later.
Then the state came and screwed up everything.
You accept this or you stay in your ivory tower. The first offers you collaboration and some conflict the second offers you sterility with full compliance to your “ideals”.
Andras,
show me an example where IP covers a situation that is without IP uncovered by property rights.
I have just did above. You can’t own what you don’t have! That case IP was first.
Here is our difference. You say physical is superior. A Neanderthal and its ancestors owns everything. I say without knowing what your physical is good for it has no worth in that direction. Then physical and IP just alternatives. What decides is who came first, as usual in homesteading. It is not really unusual either to accept a flexible limitations of your physical (by physicals). Now go further to some abstract level. And voila you will have a better system for cooperation. Like imaginary numbers can give you solutions to certain real problems.
Basically monopoly is when you tell others what they can do with their own property. And not just tell, but use state granted privelege and force to coercively exclude them from competition.
(there is something wrong with Mises blogs: I post a comment and it immediately disappears after I refresh page. Why?)
“If I patent something, then I have a monopoly in regards to that item.”
are processes patented??? do you have a monopoly to that or just a claim to some type of earnings from a particular process that many could be doing????
TimUwe
“I also fail to see how patents create monopolies.”
If I patent something, then I have a monopoly in regards to that item. You re not allowed to produce and sell that item unless I allow it. If you, using your resources, produce an item I regard as similar or the same as mine, I defend my monopoly by taking you to a government court to force you to cease and desist. I can ruin your business and get money out of you for the sin of interfering with my monopoly. I employ the power of government interference in the market to attain my objective- preservation of my monoply.
–
“In fact I would say in a free market it is impossible to create a monopoly.”
This is true and correct. It implies that there would be no such thing as a patent, since the presence of patents requires the presence of an entity to control the market and such control contradicts the fundamentals of a free market.
–
“Some one will always build a better widget if they see a market for it.”
Assuming they are not prevented from doing it. Assuming govt action doen’t forbid exploitation of that market.
Levin and Boldrin (in their book about patents) demonstrate what happens when the device of the patent is used to defeat the emergence of the innovative in order to defend the interests of patent holders (the established statuts quo). They illustrate the problem with the story of Watt and the steam engine.
–
“Monopolies are only possible through government force.”
Yes, that is true enough. And patents are an expression of government coercion and force.
Sione
“In fact I would say in a free market it is impossible to create a monopoly.”
i dont think so. i think any company that has a 100 percent market share in something is a monopoly.
there are basically two kinds of monopolies: natural and state granted with the use of illegitimate force. We are objecting the latter.
What I am hearing in this discussion is that monopolies are bad and patents are analogous to monopolies. A patent is an exclusive claim to property. Therefor property rights are analogous to monopolies. That would mean as an individual I am not entitled to my own body? After all the most fundamental property right is self ownership. Would you also make the claim you have right to clone me?
No, they are not.
I agree with you that patents are not monopolies. I’m just offering the question based on the logic I’m reading from some of the posts. I’ll have to read Rothbard’s paper. I’m curious how he comes to his conclusion concerning patents. I fail to understand how patents prevent competition.
Patents are monopolies.
Property rights are monopolies.
Silas, see if you can be troubled to answer the following question: on what basis is an inventor justified in using factors of production to implement his idea in the first place (such that he can later justifiably prevent others from similarly using factors of production to copy that implementation)? Note what I’m asking here: why is the *initial* implementation (by the inventor) legitimate?
I eagerly await your answer.
No, they are not.
Beef,
Learn the IP laws if you want to debate them. You can use anything for research.
Andras, you are free to answer my question as well (although from your continued evasion of essentially similar questions from Peter Surda, I’m skeptical that you will).
I fail to see how they do anything else but prevent competition.
I heard a rumor that patents allow some projects involving production of new ideas to become viable when otherwise they wouldn’t be, just as physical property rights allows specialization and more efficient production.
Just a rumor though, nothing to get worried about.
Silas, thank goodness for the benevolent state!
Silas,
Agreed, and if not for the apparatus of the state, we wouldn’t have roads, bridges, education or defense. After all, IP represents a positive exernality and it is the state’s job to ensure its adequate provision for the good of all.
I was under the impression that you do not like utilitarian arguments. Looks like I was mistaken.
Besides, all redistributive policies cause some projects to become more viable at the cost of other projects becoming less viable. So you didn’t even get that one right.
Ideas are not property…
None of them?
Andras: name one that is. Then I think you’ll see.
Wait–no, you won’t.
Give me a universal definition of property.
Since you did not I have to step.
A whole industry is built on ideas as property. Take the scientific literature search and retrieval. Scifinder (Chemial Abstracts), Beilstein, Derwent, I am sure you are familiar with them. Scientific publications from which you can download articles online.
Patents you buy to start a biotech. And your main asset, a quite liquid one, is that patent. Not because the state but because the industry honors it.
All your trade secrets discovered during research. etc.
Ideas are not property because they do not exist apart from their interpretation in the human brain.
An apple can be property because it exists in the real world… the idea of a number 7 (or the idea of using two lines of varying thickness that meet at a range of angles to represent the number 7) does not have a physical existence apart from a pattern of neural connections (unique to each individual) so it is not property.
If ideas are property and I overhear while you are reading a poem that you “own” in a public place I will necessarily have “stolen” your idea because neurons in my brain made connections that allow me to recite your poem to myself (or others). You can never take that property back, nor is it even possible for you to know whether I even possess it.
The “whole industry” you are discussing is based on government granted monopoly rights to generalized classes of objects that are presumed to have been created using specific ideas, whether or not the ideas were created independent. If “the industry honors” patents as you claim then nobody here has any problem with that… just remove all the state laws and intervention in the area and we will all be happy.
Anthony: “Ideas are not property because they do not exist apart from their interpretation in the human brain.”
So says you. Is this in the definition of property or non-property? So if they exist apart from their interpretation in the human brain they are property?
Exchange of ideas, or concepts, the way how we communicate. Do we really communicate at all? Do they exit our brain? I think they do.
Further, Anti-IP keep moving the goalpost. Your definition of an idea is not what is in the IP laws. These ideas cannot be patented. Stop building a strawman.
Further, I don’t think that consulting, information search and retrieval has anything to do with the state. Their demand to pay copyrights are minimal.
Further, what we have now as IP has all the characteristics of property. The fact that you ignore it will not change this fact. Your asking me to remove the government is not more valid than my requesting you not to consider ideas as property. Try to live one day by that conviction! If you want a practical solution you have to start from reality. Prove that you can reach your objectives better with less IP and don’t hide behind the state when you can’t. As I always say: the rules of homesteading of ideas are arbitrary. But there must be rules. Agitating the youth to steal will not help finding these rules and will destroy a lot of young lives.
What is your objective? How can you reach it better?
Stop cherrypicking, I agree we have too much state. Actually, we will always have too much state. But I am not an anarchist I think the state has valid functions.
Andras,
You still don’t get it. You claim that you support both physical property rights and IP. So, if an idea is always a part of a brain, and brain is covered by physical property rights, how can it also be covered by IP? That is a contradiction. Either brains are property, or ideas. You either need to abandon support for physical property or for IP.
So which one is it going to be? Or are you going to do the usual and try to drag the attention elsewhere?
Peter,
You don’t make sense, how can the brain be covered by physical property rights?
By the way, all homesteading hurts existing “rights”. If nothing else, the existing will be diluted. So you will abolish all homesteadings to freeze rights? No, you rearrange rights according to the new situation.
“what we have now as IP has all the characteristics of property”
This is about as false a statement as it is possible to make.
Property: If you take my property, I no longer have it
IP: If you “take” my idea, I still have it in the exact same way as I had it before
Property: Is finite in extent, and cannot be duplicated (you can make another mousetrap that looks like my mousetrap but yours will be made at the expense of already existing materials)
IP: Is infinite in extent, and is easily duplicated (Every human can have the same idea without converting other resources to make more of it)
Property: The use of property is rivalrous, as two people cannot use the same piece of property at the same time
IP: The same IP can be used by an infinite number of people at the same time and each person’s use would have NO direct effect on any other person’s use.
I noticed that you did not address my poem example… am I in fact stealing by overhearing a poem? Why not?
My objectives are freedom and prosperity, and I think that we can reach those objectives better without creating an artificial scarcity of ideas.
Where do you draw the line between ideas that can be owned and those that can’t? Can I own the concept of an “alphabet”? How about a particular letter? How about a sentence? How about a paragraph? If you can’t tell me then you can hardly maintain that your perspective on property is meaningful. Please let me know.
So anybody can take anyone else’s brain without violating property rights? That’s odd.
That’s imprecise. Homesteading per se does not hurt any rights. What happens is that when one actions causes the use of two resources and they are owned by different people, both need to agree to that action. On the other hand, in case one of the resources is not homesteade-able, those resources cannot be used for economic calculation. This is IP proponents’ argument (or at least some of them). That description does not fit IP however. IP does not introduce homesteading of previously unhomestead-able resources. The only thing it does is that use of existing resources requires more people’s agreement. That is my argument. To put it into your words, the dilution of property rights is the only thing IP does. Just like taxes, subsidies, mercantilism and all other redistributive policies.
Peter,
Your brain is part of your body. You own it. Right. However, you can not market it unless you market your life. Your brain is only value to you and whoever honors your life. In this sense it is not property. You cannot exchange it.
Unlike a patent you can buy or sell to have a market price. I know, I know, some freaks said it should not be. But reality is that it does. Works as property. There are lots of things like this. Just take your dollars for example. Do you want to live by your standards or you want to live. Sorry I could not help. We have to start from reality and move to the ideal, if there is one, and not just preach about the ideal.
Anthony & Peter,
I don’t argue that IP is like physical. You are right, the moment it exits your realm it potentially become infinite. This is the reason IP is not permanent. However, what happens before is the real question. What is the optimal way to enter new ideas into the economic world. Anti-IP starts from the consequence. They think IP is already there, granted. This is a false view. The whole argument about IP is false without acknowledging that IP is not about ideas but how they come to existence and then how they enter the economy. IP laws are about the entry stage only and only that. We should not even discuss whether ideas are property or not. They are in transition from unique to infinite in this stage. Their characters change on the way. To focus only at the end stage is a misdirection from Kinsella. The real question is how this introduction happen and what should the optimal way be. Yes, you can do it his way but there will be consequences. Consequences, nobody can predict as never had it before. Actually, statelessness never happened before, or the anarchist would never admit it because they would not be proud of it.
Following on the line of what the real debate should be. We should discuss the alternatives how a stateless system might work. Pros and cons, and see whether clinging to narrow property definition is good. Kinsella puts the cart in front of the horse so never expect from him any debate like this. but it doesn’t mean it should not happen.
Andras,
If you want to move away from the principals of the issue and discuss the issue from a purely utilitarian view then we can certainly do that.
The problems I have with IP from a purely practical standpoint are several.
1. It forces companies to divert huge amounts of resources away from actually designing/making things and towards lawsuits and lobbying and other wasteful activities.
2. It rewards companies/individuals for making superfluous patents that they never intended to use, by allowing them to sue companies that are actually producing things.
3. It can reduce innovation by discouraging companies from making new products in case those products inadvertently violated one or more patents (read http://blog.mises.org/11076/common-misconceptions-about-plagiarism-and-patents-a-call-for-an-independent-inventor-defense/ for a good example)
4. There is no logical way to decide which ideas to protect and which ones not to… why business methods and why not fashion?
Even from a purely utilitarian standpoint I have many reasons to oppose patents.
As for a free market alternative, let people and companies use contracts as they will and let the market determine what is best.
Anthony,
I admit you have a point. However, are they fundamentals of IP or just from the abuse of IP? Anti-IP keeps talking of free markets though no-one knows how it would work as it has never happened before. And even if it happens the effects of the current system will be felt for at least a generation. Present inventions will be cannibalized and future inventions will be depleted. Unfortunately, here we are not allowed to discuss these issues. The market is always invoked to solve all problems. Yes it will. Market is everywhere, even in a concentration camp to deal with scarcity. I think a more practical approach would be to just keep diminishing the state beyond all limits.
Below are some reply on your points
“1. It forces companies to divert huge amounts of resources away from actually designing/making things and towards lawsuits and lobbying and other wasteful activities.”
We don’t know e.g., how inventors would react to loosing their inventions prematurely. You see only the resources taken away currently. You can not see the resources that would be used to prevent premature leakage of info.
“2. It rewards companies/individuals for making superfluous patents that they never intended to use, by allowing them to sue companies that are actually producing things.”
All property rights invite abuse. IP is not an excepsion.
“3. It can reduce innovation by discouraging companies from making new products in case those products inadvertently violated one or more patents.”
Here is the point that I disagree most. Research is free of IP laws. You can go beyond anything known while in research. If it is that good, and not just a me-too thing it is by definition patentable. So IP law will not prevent any innovation. Yes there will be less me-too-s. But is it that bad? Remember, all IP are temporary. You step back a few years and you can do whatever you want.
Moreover, I claim that without IP there is no way of co-operation in the field of innovation. You can not make a non-disclosure agreement without putting value on the subject. Without IP there is no value system on the ideas. There will be only lone wolves and research fortresses to prevent all leaks.
“4. There is no logical way to decide which ideas to protect and which ones not to… why business methods and why not fashion?”
I agree partially. However, there are some fields where innovations are better defined, better even than e.g., land homesteading. Why can’t you just leave them alone?
“Even from a purely utilitarian standpoint I have many reasons to oppose patents.”
And I have reason to oppose anti-IP. By the way, I don’t think my approach is utilitarian.
Another of my objection is how do you reconcile the contradiction that “The bigger the problem i.e. the more you need an idea as a solution the less will be the incentives as the leakage is faster. It follows that the bigger the problem the less you want to spend on its research as the risk on return will be bigger.
Though these are practical problems they address the fundamental flaws of non-IP.
Pleas don’t hide behind the hatred for the state and a religious belief of the market. Don’t forget, even if you have statelessness tomorrow you have to deal with the transition for years with the people around you.
I would love to discuss these issues: The front end of the innovation, transition from the unique to the infinite. We tortured the other end and its is quite idle now. However, it is becoming quite cumbersome to discuss these things here among hundreds of varying comments.
“Anti-IP keeps talking of free markets though no-one knows how it would work as it has never happened before.”
You are one confused mother-fucker.
Andras,I would be willing to discuss the transition phase… an absolute prerequisite to any meaningful change of patent law would be the recognition of independent discoveries.
If you patent the idea of, say, putting a picture on a website, and I put a picture on my website without knowing about or using your patent, do I owe you money?
If you answer yes then I don’t see that we can progress much further with this discussion… but if you say no then you should really read my link above, because I think you might be surprised at how much of a difference that change would make.
Really, though, Kinsella has written many articles on things that could be done to improve IP without scrapping it entirely (although that would be preferable), and I doubt that I could list them better than he can (in “reducing the cost of IP law”)… what do you think of them?
Beef,
Did I talk to you?
Have an intelligent input and I might.
Anthony,
I don’t see how can you patent a general idea of putting a picture on a website. I am not an expert on IT and its intricacies but it sounds obvious and too general which would exclude it. According to the system, once yuo have a patent you have no choice but enforce it even if I don’t know how. So I am for well founded patenting and as minimal as possible, only for true inventions.
I am familiar with chemistry and I am confident that there is room for IP there. Since that is the least questionable of all IP, as such, this is the weakest point of non-IP. I suggest everyone should focus on it to discuss the justification of IP. Of course, after acquiring some basic knowledge about it.
I don’t think Kinsella wants to improve on IP. According to his publications he is for abolishing it all together.
Andras,
“I am familiar with chemistry and I am confident that there is room for IP there.”
If you will accept the caveat that there should be a total exemption from patents for independent discoverers then I do not have much objection to IP for certain strictly limited instances (although only as a transition towards a market based mechanism). Even in chemistry you are not safe, however; there are those who honestly argue that isolated oxygen molecules should have been patentable…
As for Kinsella, he does want to eliminate IP but he has also made some vary good recommendations for improvements in the meantime. You should read the articles I mentioned.
p.s. If you reply please do so at the bottom of the page… the reply button is too far away from the actual posts here.
Basically, monopoly is when you tell others what they can do with their own property. Not just tell, but use the legal state granted privelege to exclude the from market with state’s force.
Property rights doesn’t exclude you from using your property, just from using my property that I legitimatly own.
My objectives are freedom and prosperity, and I think that we can reach those objectives better without creating an artificial scarcity of ideas.
“artificial” meaning govt imposed and/or market initiated???
“Artificial” meaning government imposed. Any market initiated scarcity is perfectly fine.
well govts are very real. maybe a dictionary could provide a better word for you.
“artificial” does not mean non-existent… a government intervention in a free market can be called “artificial” in the sense that the intervention is not intrinsic to the market. Stop nitpicking.
with say a two party contract to keep to not copy some thing you wouldnt have a problem then if i third party did begin to copy an ideal thing??? makin the original two party contract pretty meaningless as far as effect???
You are correct; third parties are not bound to contracts they did not agree to. The original two party contract binds those two parties and it has meaning insofar as it governs their behavior.
If you think that you are bound by contracts you didn’t agree to then I will sign a contract with my friend that says that you need to pay me $1000… you should really send me the money otherwise you will make my contract “pretty meaningless as far as effect”.
“Anthony: “Ideas are not property because they do not exist apart from their interpretation in the human brain.”
So says you. Is this in the definition of property or non-property? So if they exist apart from their interpretation in the human brain they are property?”
can the brainless even have property???
when the constitution says to ‘secure’ (as in secure a bicycle) discoveries and writings did the authors mean the paper with the writing or the pattern of words that was written??? my understanding was they were trying to secure (in an odd way) the pattern…or the experience of the words. if the pattern is the the transference of the ideal/idea then apparently some that to have a property attribute.
but if you own your brain you likely own what goes on inside it.
james,
I did not give “a definition of non-property”, I simply gave one specific requirement for something to be property (a physical presence).
Your argument from the American constitution means nothing to me… I am not American nor would I care if I were. The constitution was a document written by imperfect human beings; it is an imperfect document and just because the constitution implies that ideas can be property does not mean that ideas are property.
As for owning your brain, that is a great example of why ideas can’t be property. To reuse my example above, if I overhear you reading a poem then the words to “your” poem are now in my brain… since it is in my brain does that mean than now I own it? Or is it merely a pattern of words that cannot be truly owned any more than you could own the process of “making a fire”?
p.s. Only humans own property, and all humans have brains, so I am not sure what you meant by you “brainless” comment.
“what we have now as IP has all the characteristics of property”
This is about as false a statement as it is possible to make.”
false as in was the poster lying???
The word “false” means “incorrect”. Use a dictionary if you don’t know the meaning of a word.
lies are false
So are honest misunderstandings… what is your point?
Basically monopoly is when you tell others what they can do with their own property. And not just tell, but use state granted privilege and force to coercively exclude them from competition.
There is something wrong with Mises blogs: I post a comment and it immediately disappears after I refresh page. Why? Anyway, please delete double entries if my previous posts magically re-appear.
So when Bell or Standard Oil had monopolies at early XXth century they did not really had it. That monopoly was not this monopoly.
Can we have a definition of monopoly? Can we use Mises’ definition? Or that is also obsolete here and now. Why is this whole IP discussed here under these conditions and not on anarchy.com?
Could you clarify your first sentence please?
Andras, see ch. 9 of Hoppe’s TSC.
if a govt via force (but necessarily from all its citizens wishes) grants a sole privalege to a ‘company’ to operate that sounds like a monopoly.
if one company happens to have 100 percent of a market share that sounds like a monopoly too…the govt just isnt involved then.
Economic laws prevent one company from having 100% market share for long (absent state intervention, of course)… competitors are always waiting and there are always alternative products to the one that is monopolized. Even if monopolies do form they would be nothing to worry about in a free market.
“economic laws prevent one company from having 100% market share for long”…..maybe, but if it has occurred and still does that would be a monopoly to me.
but if i do your lame lying advice “(economics) a market in which there are many buyers but only one seller….http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&rlz=1C1GPCK_enUS396&defl=en&q=define:monopoly&sa=X&ei=UOsETa2XDsGblgf2zu20CQ&ved=0CBMQkAE
i guess you will say that isnt a dictionary. pathetic
You really do have me stumped. With a name like “james b. longacre” you would think you have to speak English. Then you say things like “but if i do your lame lying advice” which is something someone who speaks English as a second language might say. You constantly accuse people on here of “lying” like a 7 year old. Maybe you are only a child. But what child would care about the definition of monopoly? Very odd. Either way, how about you stop polluting this blog with your insulting twaddle.
james,
Your link points to the exact definition I used below (several hours ago)… what is your problem?
Please either make an argument or stay out of the discussion.
Some say here that monopolies exist only through government and monopolies are bad. Bell and Standard Oil were examples of another definition of monopoly. They were called monopoly due to the size of their influence through their property. Their property.
I assume, according to prevalent thought here they were not real monopolies then. The reason I have asked for a definition.
Thanks for the clarification.
I am not particularly familiar with those specific historical cases but I will try to give a general answer in terms of Microsoft, which I know a little more about. Many considered Microsoft to be a monopoly because they were the dominant company in the OS market for some years. This was not a true example of a monopoly because users were free to choose one of the less popular platforms and because companies were free to enter the market.
Over time these “near monopolies” will be diluted by competitors, and this will happen even faster if the company uses monopoly pricing, which would enable new competitors to undercut the monopoly prices more easily. In a free market “monopolies” are constantly undermined by competitors and in any case customers are free to substitute goods from related markets (i.e. if Blackberrys are too expensive due to a monopoly but a laptop instead).
A true monopoly (as the word is being used here) uses government power to prevent other competitors from entering the field (and sometimes even related fields), as was the case with the Hudson’s Bay Company, British East India Company, etc. In these cases other companies were prohibited by law from competing, just as patent law prevents companies from entering markets and competing with existing companies.
Does this answer your question?
So you changed the definition of monopoly to fit you preconception. You say time will solve this. I say IP is temporary, too. There are rules what and how ideas can be owned. E.g. to be patentable it has to be new, progressive and practical (short version!). Not an easy task.
Monopoly power is supposed to mean monopoly pricing, and your example of Standard Oil did not raise the price of oil and oil products, but on the contrary it continually lowered those prices.
When we say that true monopolies exist only with government intervention we are referring to companies that are in the long term able to maintain a higher than average profit margin.
Profits tend towards a certain level over time except when the government creates barriers to entry preventing competition. The reason is relatively obvious, even should a company become a monopoly and attempt to raise prices they will in turn create the incentive for new competition to exist. Only when the government will only license certain entities (such as with the credit ratings agencies like Moodys) or when it only permits one business to run things (AT&T, The Fed, etc.) do you get these long term problems.
I see this direction here. The meaning and definition of monopoly is changing to fit the preconception. Let me just note that monopoly did not mean that before.
Yes profit tend towards a certain level, towards maximum. Standard oil was not different even when they had a monopoly. Whether you call it a monopoly price or not is your choice, very subjective.
Andras,
The definition of monopoly we are using is an important part of Austrian economics, because the concept of a monopoly is something that is NOT properly understood by mainstream economists. We have very good reasons for defining monopoly the way we do, and I am certainly not the one who first proposed the definition I am using. Human Action deals with it extensively, and Economics in One lesson discusses it as well. I am not redefining monopoly to suit this debate… Mises redefined it years ago and since his definition makes much more sense then the popular one I choose to use it.
The prefix “mono” means “one”… if you can think of a market that has ever existed that truly had only one seller I would admit that it was a monopoly… a market with one major seller and a few smaller ones that is not a monopoly market.
I would contend that although the free market can create the latter situation, for the former to exist (except in the very short term) requires government intervention.
If a company gains monopoly advantage by being first to market that is fine, other companies will come to compete, but when the government prevents competitors from entering the market via patents, the situation is a GOVERNMENT CREATED MONOPOLY by any definition.
Anthony, “The prefix “mono” means “one”… if you can think of a market that has ever existed that truly had only one seller I would admit that it was a monopoly… a market with one major seller and a few smaller ones that is not a monopoly market.
I would contend that although the free market can create the latter situation, for
the former to exist (except in the very short term) requires government intervention.”
I agree. We have arrived back to Mises. So monopolies are not inherently bad.
IP, especially patents are short term as well. A few years for a lot of thing you would not even have otherwise or just much much later. It is your choice how to define property. See my comments to Peter Surda.
Monopolies are inherently bad when they rely on the use of aggressive force against people who enter into voluntary agreements regarding their own property. Take away the force (i.e. IP law and enforcement) and do what you want. But when you send men with guns to protect an “idea” that you own from people who use it (even if they discovered it independently) you are being “bad”.
“”"”"”"”"”Some say here that monopolies exist only through government and monopolies are bad. “”"”"
looks like others need seconds language help too.
people are literally dying because Fabrazyme is in short supply and the sole, monopolistic manufacturer, Genzyme, can’t make enough quickly enough–and no one else is permitted to make it due to the patent………..
if genzyme was contracting its drug idea/formula to only those who could afford it , in a sense doing about what a patent would do, would anyone her ecomplain about that???? would that be a market failure instead of a govt failure??? a “people literally dying because……..” scenario??
the situation is a GOVERNMENT CREATED MONOPOLY by any definition. ill check the dictionary.
Go for it, james…
Better yet, I’ll do it for you
monopoly: “a market in which there are many buyers but only one seller”
There is only one seller of fabrazyme and the government actively prohibits anyone else from selling it. What would you call it?
Seems like monopoly is inherent to the concept of property. If I own a car, I have a monopoly on that car’s use. A field, or a house, the same. The government excludes others from the use of that property and maintains my exclusive control, by violence if necessary.
Robert, you must have missed a good chunk of this discussion…
A monopoly is on a MARKET, not an object. Having property rights to your car is nothing like having monopoly rights to the sale of cars… property rights govern distinct physical entities and monopoly rights govern markets and/or types of objects, regardless of their material origin.
By this I mean if I use my piece of wood to make a “widget”, which you have patented, only your government granted monopoly can stop me from selling it, not your property right to your original widget.
Do you see the difference?
they won’t. Because if they did, they wouldn’t advocate IP.
The difference is imaginary. Property involves the exclusive control over something, which is a monopoly. Property is often abstract; a share of IBM no more refers to a material object than a patent.
Intellectual property is no different from any other kind of property in that it grants control over who can use the property to the owner. If intellectual property rights cause death because owners refuse to share . . . that’s true of “material” property as well, isn’t it?
So in summary you see no difference whatsoever between the two cases I mentioned above ( http://blog.mises.org/14949/patents-kill-compulsory-licenses-and-genzymes-life-saving-drug/comment-page-1/#comment-744377 )? I find that rather sad…
Regarding “abstract” property, using shares as an example, the ownership of shares is governed by specific agreements between the shareholder and the people who administer the resources of the company. Since it is a contractual relationship between two (or more) consenting parties there need be no ambiguity or conflict regarding their ownership.
IP is different in that it binds people who were not consenting parties and who agreed to no contract… this is the critical difference. Or are contracts “imaginary” too?
well, the vaccine is real property. but to make real property vaccinable one needs info…the ideal, iow.
if there is only 10 mg of vaccine and it is a 5mg dose two people can get the vaccine. but i suppose hundreds could have the info on how to produce it at the same time. right???
I think I can agree with you there, james…
but what is your point?
You guys, step out of 3-D for a minute. No one owns the Earth. And from an American Law Review; “Violating a premier PRINCIPLE OF NATURE with the baneful and stupid conclusion that factual ignorance is beneficial to you.” I just had that much of an article. John Searle our present Guru, of what we wrong-headed label ‘free energy, rather than ‘free radiant energy’ what it truly is. Or can be. Being that there’s cold nuclear and hot nuclear. Anyways, John Searle, has been trying, as Tesla did, to grant us the way to perpetual, clean, energy since the mid ’60′s. Not to be patented. As that is the old way. Alas, ‘profit motive must skeedaddle along to the UNNECESSARY WORD NOT FOR HUMAN CONSUMPTION Account. As energy cannot be created or destroyed-energy as whole, complete and exquisite. Not artifically/corp, separated, dissected and examined, labeled, ‘science.’ No one can tell you what electricity is. Another made-up word? We, my friends, are supporting the fisad that, ‘power’ corporations, companies and/or utility actually generate energy. They Do Not. The generator is destroying a dipole, only to replace it UNNECESSARILY. Our present, commonly referred to as ‘grid’. isn’t about anything positive to any of us. E X T R E M E L Y Dirty and we are cooperating by continuing to not recognize evil. Rather off there…just, the IP issue doesn’t seem relevant to me at this timespace. Cooperation, not competition. We’ve been dumbed-down with the, Charles ‘only the strong survive’ Darwin THEORY for far too many generations–we’re permeated. Communication with correct definitions of our words, sharing our truths that are logic, is one safe and sane way thru this transition. With our language being f with daily – green does not mean smart. Transparent, to me, is a sign-post word. ‘Pierce the corporate veil’ or notice that, FRN’s have no value. We’re just passing debt notes – either one is transparent to see in full view. It’s not a secret. So, the word ‘economics’ for all that deliberating and posturing, in my present opinion, is just, well, not needed. If a word brings ‘separation’ to mind, it’s an archaic word. You, me, the enemies, borders, terrorists. The war on Tera. The continual wars of the western world are wars on humanity. Don’t doubt it. Wakie up. ‘Devolution’ n 1545 -transference (as of rights, authority & responsibility) to another; esp. the surrender of authority (not power), to local authorities by a central government. When the general atmosphere is bad, language must suffer. Language as an instrument for expressing and not for concealing or preventing thought. Andra’s reply just above, regarding the definition of monopoly – great. I so enjoy reading these ‘oh so properly worded’ blogs.
Does anyone else suspect that Linda is a bot?
If you are not a bot, Linda, please try to make more sensible posts… shorter, maybe?
tep out of 3-D for a minute. No one owns the Earth…..
what does the american law review say about theft??
This notion that the people who invent a thing are the same people who hold the patent, is as cute as it is demonstrably false. Pharmaceuticals do not “invent” drugs any more than publishing houses write novels. They rely upon laboratories and universities. IP does not incentivize invention, but production (which in this case includes regulatory compliance). This raises the question: if you wish to encourage production, why on earth would you prevent competition?
If patent law were removed, the true cost of our regulatory process would become manifest. Few new drugs would be brought to market. The presence of patent law does not remove these costs… it merely passes them on to the consumer – and increasingly, the taxpayer – in the form of vastly higher prices.
Anthony,
I am for composition of matter patents in chemistry: only new compounds can be patented.
So no room for oxygen. Structures are absolutely unambiguous. Since all compounds and research are cataloged through SciFinder (and Beilstein/Gmelin) and everyone has to read them for their own research there is no room for independent discoveries.
What if two teams are working on the same structure, and one team submits it to SciFinder one hour earlier? Is the second team required to destroy their research, since it is now owned by the first team?
I am not aware of any conflict. What you asked about has a big magnitude in research circles so I should.
The reason it is not happening is that the groups are working on single projects for years, sometimes decades. It is part of a preparation for a project to evaluate the IP position and later the competition and their work is monitored constantly. If necessary directions change. Again, a project, the problem can not be patented only the solution(s), the compounds. This is the reason that several new drugs for the same indication may come out simultaneously as science progresses similarly for all competitors.
And when these are out, these solutions can compete on the market.
Of course, there might still have conflicts but the law is clear. All sides know the risks.
But don’t you see that those “risks” are a product of the patent system, and that they would be absent without it. Further, the risk of being preempted would act to reduce investment in research.
It all goes back to being able to control property that belongs to others… the utilitarian case is iffy and the logical/moral case is clear against the ownership of ideas. I’m sorry, but unless you can show me that ideas can be property in a way that does not preempt physical property rights I can’t see that any from of patent can possibly by just.
Anthony,
Assessment of risks is part of all planning. It does not prevent anything, it just changes directions. You have a potential market and you have capital. You just try to match the two.
Anti-IP would have risks as well, even bigger ones.
If you want to see property in IP go to the front and of the innovation chain. It has all the characteristics of property. You anti-IP are obsessed with the fully disclosed end stage but never bother to look at where these ideas come from and how.
Andras, how do these trite observations show that the state is justifed in granting monopolies that protect innovators from competition?
Andras,
Where did ideas come from before patents? There was innovation before patents and there will be innovation after patents.
Besides which, ideas absolutely do not have “all the characteristics of property” at any point… I addressed that earlier.
I find this article laughably erroneous (“break the patent” should read: “negotiate the license”). It is not a patent which prevents the compound or gene or antibody or drug from being sold or manufactured elsewhere, it is the license agreement – seems to me like Genzyme has some very smart lawyers who snatched up the rights to Fabrazyme in such an airtight manner that Genzyme was given the monopoly. I don’t know whether to applaud the strength of that license and the people who wrote it, lament the folly of those who signed away their patent to the monopoly or weep for the dying. It’s a tragic situation.
License agreements bind only those who signed them. Patent laws bind everyone even despite their knowledge of it.
This article (and sadly much of the discussion) displays massive ignorance of the processes by which drugs may be manufactured for sale. No other manufacturer, no matter how sophisticated can simply begin to make a biopharmaceutical without tech transfer and qualification procedures that would consume the better part of a year. These procedures are mandated by law, are not negotiable, and are fully justified primarily on the basis or protecting patients from unscrupulous players from producing from a slapdash process to take advantage of short-term market fluctuations.
If a distressed producer such as Genzyme in this case, can demonstrate a plan to restore supply in a similar timeframe, it makes little sense to create a parallel production capability which will be idle.
A secondary reason is to protect the IP of the patent holder. Fabyzyme is an orphan drug, one that is produced under special patent protection because the base of users is so small that the conventional business dynamics support no business model in which the development and production costs may be recovered, let alone any profit made. Hence the patients of rare diseases are ‘orphaned’ without these patents.
I would say the author glosses over the unfortunate facts to serve the purpose of intensifying the sensationalistic tone, but as Ben Frankiln said: “Never attribute to malice, that which is more easily attributed to ignorance”. Even with that in mind, you should be more responsible than to callously suggest 5,000 people are dying because of this situation without backing that up with some real data.
You say that the regulations are “fully justified primarily on the basis or protecting patients from unscrupulous players from producing from a slapdash process to take advantage of short-term market fluctuations”…
Shouldn’t the patients be the ones to decide that? Between dying for sure due to a total absence of medication and risking a “slapdash process”, my choice would be clear.
Uh huh. Tell that to the folks who died due to melamine in the tainted Baby Formula and Toothpaste from China. And they were healthy people – imagine what happens when someone with a ultra-rare, life-threatening disease gets bad medicine.
My point is that there is an abundance of stories where corporate avarice works against the public good, some of them in pharmaceuticals, but this is not one of them. The OP and many of the posters here have no idea what they are talking about. They all show up with their attitudes and prejudices and go to work on stories like this one and use this echo chamber to craft another shrill indictment of ‘the Man’ without ever stopping to think about any of it.
What you all suggest about the production is simply not possible and what you personally suggest about patients choosing their own treatments is foolish. What’s worse, many people of your ilk (but perhaps not you) who chose treatments against advice would upon a poor outcome turn around and seek damages from the advisers (doctors, regulators, government) for failing to protect the patient. If they were truly accepting the risk of the decision I could abide it, but my experience says that is mostly untrue.
As for the production constraints pertaining to this particular drug I will not argue with you… the particulars of this situation are far less interesting to me then the general issues involved (in any case I agree with your assessment of the time it would take to get a new manufacturer up and running).
Your example of toothpaste from China is a good one, but the assumption that only government inspections can solve the problem is misguided. Private quality control works extremely well in practice (think Underwriters Labs, for example), and there is no reason why that model could not be extended to cover medications (via the government phasing out)… but the real issue is that certification by UL is voluntary, unlike FDA certification.
In most areas have a choice between paying more for a certified product and skimping with the risk that the product will fail… the stakes may (or may not) be higher in health-related fields but the principle is the same. If I buy a shoddy ladder and it breaks, injuring me, I am within my rights to sue the ladder manufacturer, but not the government or the person who recommended that I use a ladder. In any case, I am better of with a CHOICE of products than I am without that choice. The only reason people think that they should sue the government is because the government has made itself responsible for ensuring product safety… which brings up the final point of accountability.
If a government inspection misses problems with a product and that product kills people, what happens?
1. The government department involved is given MORE money and power
2. One or two people might lose their jobs (more likely be reassigned)
3. Taxpayers foot any and all legal bills
If a private inspection misses problems with a product and that product kills people, what happens?
1. People loose faith in the company, therefore the company loses influence, stock values drop along with profits
2. Anyone at fault is more likely to be removed from their position
3. The legal bills are paid for by the company that made the mistake
4. If the mistake is big enough the company goes out of business
Which of those two scenarios do you think would lead to fewer mistakes?
p.s. It is not “foolish” to think that people should have the right to choose what to put in their bodies; if you think that the resulting lawsuits are unjust then you should argue for a reform of tort laws instead of assuming that everything the government does is right. In Canada people are not even allowed to buy unpasteurized milk… imagine people “foolishly” assuming that they are capable of choosing which type of milk to drink.
Download full movie – young naked teens free today
young naked teens bdsm knee pic
pam anderson pussy pics
deelishis bubble butt pics
senior cunts pics
accidental gymnastics nudity pics movies
free pics twinks
drawn together porn pics
sexy pedicured sweaty feet pics
free nude teen image galleries hot
ten blonde nude sea beach pic
hairy twats pics
karla devito nude pics
best petite xxx pics
young naked teen girls bikini
false boobs tits pics
spy peep cam pics
amateur submitted sex pics
misty stone naked pics
image of father chris riley
pubescent vulva pic
free hairy milf pics
tiny teens nude pics
sexy tight skirt pics
young naked teenage emo girls ass and tits
free adult gag and tease pics
jlh bikini pics
kristen prostitute pics
nude wife swinning free pics
hidden penis pics
free upskirt hairy pics
scandalous cheerleader pics
slut porn pics thumbs
free micro bikini pics
colleen haskell nude pics
pics of britney spears absolutely nude
young naked teenage girl
schoolgirl sex pic
sara jay nude pics
best voyeur nylon pics
rose thomson titty pics
black handjob images
thai women fee nude pics
toothless granny blowjob pics
rosa mendes fake naked pics
free pics of boobs
antia dark nude pics
kalen christmas nude pics
family nudism pic gallery
asian snake and flower images
Comments on this entry are closed.