A comment by a friend about a future world of smart machines and robots made me think of one way to illustrate the manifest injustice and absurdity of patents. Whenever patent and copyright are discussed, a few typical arguments routinely emerge:
- how would pharmaceutical companies make money without? After all, it takes hundreds of millions of dollars to do the research and testing, and if some competitor could just knock them off, no one would make the drugs in the first place. (Nevermind Boldrin & Levine’s complete evisceration of the empirical assumptions here in ch. 9 of Against Intellectual Monopoly.)
- And without copyright, you could never have blockbuster movies. (As if the purpose of this state monopoly is to make sure society produces Avatar; and forgetting that people go to movie theaters and pay for the privilege.)
- Patents are essential to protect the little guy. (Forget the fact that patents protect larger companies from competition from smaller players, leading to barriers to entry and oligopolies. See Patent Cross-Licensing Creates Barriers to Entry; Intellectual Property Advocates Hate Competition; also Kevin Carson, Criminalizing Competition.)
My point here is that the “strongest” case for patents is alleged to be the pharmaceutical industry. Now imagine a not-too-distant future world where 3D printers of all types are becoming more prevalent. It is easy to imagine machines designed to fabricate pharmaceuticals. If a new life-saving drug hits the market and costs thousands of dollars per year (due to the combination of the patent monopoly, the FDA system, medical licensure of doctors, government regulation of prescription drugs, and other state interventions), some consumers may prefer to “make their own” generic version, using reverse-engineered “recipes” floating around the web programmed into their own, or a friend’s, 3D drug printer. Just as the hacker community quickly cracks new iOS releases on the iPhone, say, it is not hard to imagine the drug-hacker community reverse engineering the composition and manufacturing method of pharmaceuticals–especially in this near future world with increasingly sophisticated and cheap analyzing and related equipment.
Now, these home-made generic pharmaceuticals might not be as good as the official ones. They might even be more dangerous. But to save thousands of dollars a year, many people might turn to this.
In such a world, what would Big Pharma and the state that it is in bed with do? Today, it’s easy for the state to pursue generic drug companies: they are visible and easy to target and find. And though attacking them indirectly harms the consumer, it’s not seen as a direct attack on the consumer–just as the poor and middle classes sometimes support taxes on corporations even though this ends up filtering down to them in terms of higher prices.
But in a world of home-brew drug printers, what would the state and its Big Pharma cronies do? Would Patent SWAT teams break down the front doors of homes of suspected “patent smugglers,” as is done now in the drug war? (And as illustrated in fiction, with respect to the use of patents to shut down crops infected by patented “seeds”–see, e.g., The Evil of Patenting Food and Seeds; season 4, episode 5, of the TNT program “Leverage”; Geoffrey Allan Plauché’s review of “The Calorie Man” by Paolo Bacigalupi.) There may be some of this, but in the end it would be hard to prevent such widespread “homebrew” drug fabrication. This would, of course, drive down the prices of the patented, “official” products.
Another tack the state might take would be to go after the use of information, as it does now in the case of copyright. Owning a 3D drug printer would not be per se illegal since it has so-called “non-infringing” uses. The only thing that would make certain uses of it illegal would be loading a given recipe into it that enables it to fabricate a version of some patented pharmaceutical. How would a consumer obtain these recipes? Probably on the Internet, by email, the Pirate Bay, and so on. So what the state would have to make illegal would be knowledge itself, a recipe for how to do something. It would be illegal to find out how to make a given drug. We are already seeing the beginning of the IP War on 3D Printing; it would no doubt escalate as home fabricators were used to manufacture high-priced drugs. So we can see that in the future, the only way to protect the patent for the allegedly most important case for patents, would be to have the state police and censor knowledge and information. And,
That, of course, is what the state does now, it’s just that it’s not as easy for consumers to see this yet. In the future, hopefully, with increasingly advanced technology, it will be harder and harder for the state to maintain its cover.
{ 45 comments }
The link you list for the war on 3d printing doesn’t work.
I don’t think the 3D printer is safe from illegality: The “non-infringing uses” argument hasn’t done much to protect torrent sites from attack.
It has done a lot to protect the bittorrent application itself, however, and those trackers for which there is no evidence of trading in copyrighted things.
This is exactly why I believe the state is going to be insanely more intrusive into peoples lives. The same thing goes with 3d printers and nanotech printing up guns and explosives and bioagents. They will micro-regulate the daylights out of every individual, they will do it for safety, to stop terrorism, to save the environment, for the war on drugs, any reason they can think of. The era of a camera in every bedroom is very possible.
From the RIAA and the copyright cartel, we already know exactly how far they are going to want to go. They wanted an absolute authoritarian presence on every computer connected to the internet. They extended copyrights to infinity.
Think about it this way. When the industrial revolution and machines started to make slavery irrelevant, did the plantation masters back off. NO. In stead they envisioned a new era where machines would make their slaves 1000 times more productive and their plantations 100 times bigger, and they cracked down on slaves harder than ever, not even allowing them to read.
When the information age started to make copyright irrelevant, did they decide to back off on enforcement. NO instead they expanded copyright to infinity and instead bet on a new era where they would expect an infinite stream of royalties and licensing fees from every house hold, and cracked down on copyright sometimes punishing people worse than murderers, and started to file tens and thousands of law suits.
Well, as society enters into the replication age. The state backed patent cartel is going to have this wet-dream of a never ending stream of royalties from every home. They will extend patent to infinity. They will punish violators with drastic punishment, possibly even death. The government will micro-regulate and crack down on every aspect of home replication. People will be inspected to the greatest extent possible. We already know how evil they are willing to get, the way monsanto attacks farmers, the way the pharmaceuticals tried to lock out generic AIDS medicine from millions of poor people dying of AIDS in Africa.
The problem is with the information age, you can’t shoot information with a tank. Information by its nature is very hard to control. However, controlling inventions is a very physical hands on process. The government will really have no bounds here. It will be like the war on drugs turbo-boosted.
And the war on drugs has done so much to get rid of drugs.
And the war for copyright has prevented me from infringing copyright.
And the war for patents will fare no better.
This will get ugly. Look at music. Once upon a time you could buy an album, copy it to numerous cassette tapes, and give them to your friends. The music industry accepted that they had no way to stop this. Now technology makes sharing music much easier, but also gives the corporations and government more tools to track and extort infringers.
Until the “3D drug printers” arrive would you leave us alone?
BTW, repeating and promoting the Boldrin & Levine’s lies, even after multiple refutation, will not advance your cause. It just makes you a liar, too.
“Andras,” where have B&L been “refuted”? Failure to provide a specific reply with a working link will be deemed to be an admission of defeat.
Lies? Boldrin and Levine? That’s the most powerful, well-reasoned and well-supported book ever written against intellectual property. How can someone be this blind?
Fortunately, the history of the last more than hundred years of chemistry is painstakingly documented in Beilsten (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beilstein_database) and Chemical Abstract (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chemical_Abstracts_Service). You can go and search any of B&L claims and match with reality. You will not find one true claim in that book concerning pharmaceuticals. Every time you write an article on pharma patents I draw your attention to this fact. At the beginning I gave you specific examples then I gave up. If you really want to know the truth you will find it there otherwise nothing matters. However, you lead your readership to responses like rufus’ and that is just below the name of Ludwig von MIses.
Andras,
Thank you for not “admitting defeat”.
Again, like I have done before in my comments to these type of postings, I challenge anyone to select any section or example of B&L on pharmaceuticals to discuss and show the real facts, including the historical references.
Andras,
it is hypocritical for a coward to challenge others. Face the objections I made towards you throughout the years first.
In my opinion the fundamental contribution of B&L is not the normative aspect of their claims, but an empirical demonstration that IP has historically not been necessary to achieve the goals that IP proponents typically claim are relevant. This forces the IP proponents to take the normative approach.
Your arguments are not even properly normative because you completely avoid the definition of the normative scale you use. You degenerate into primitive redistributionalism, ignore the concept of opportunity costs and vaguely assert that without IP, there won’t be enough (something). Maybe without IP, there won’t be enough morons who bullshit on forums. You argue that the costs of pharmaceutical research are too high compared to copying. But that could very well be confusing cause and effect. Maybe the costs are too high due to IP in the first place and rather than protecting market shares, it would be more beneficial to reduce the costs. Folding@home is an example that I can think of. Who knows how the research structure would be modified without IP? You certainly don’t, you’re a dogmatist.
You again.
I offered no more, no less than just a fact finding tour. How the tourists will use, massage, spin the facts is their business. Apparently, you are not interested in facts so I am safe of your drivel.
Andras,
Yes, me again, the pesky falsificationist who insists that people make logically correct arguments and do not resort to emotions.
A fact finding tour cannot fix the logical errors in your claims. Fix the logical errors first.
The fact is, neither historical evidence nor theoretical musings lead to the conclusion that IP is necessary for innovation, even if B&L were not presenting correct data. All you can do is to compare the effects of the presence or absence of IP on some normative scale (which you did not provide).
Peter,
It is not about me. It is about the allegations B&L makes. Those are easy to check by a simple literature search. This is how facts work. Do you even know what you are arguing about or just being infected by rabid hatred?
Please, go falsify yourself.
Andras,
if you think someone lies, that does not absolve you from arguing logically correctly.
It doesn’t take much to wake up the dogs these days, does it?
It’s been my feeling that if someone CAN knock off a product you make, you aren’t pushing the envelope hard enough. Companies at present can be lazy and slow with improvements, secure in the knowledge that they will not see direct competition for years. But if you invest in developing a product and the infrastructure behind it and aim for a market that needs it, you can crush the competition for a long time before they can catch up. Could another company compete with Intel and AMD? It would be hard, considering how rapid their advancements are. And this level of advancement, I feel, is not uniquely possible in semiconductors but should be possible in all industries if the companies were allowed to fight over our money the way they should.
@Dan,
If you seriously want to consider what you suggest please consider the fact that years of testing and hundreds of millions of dollars worth of pharmaceutical innovation is compacted in a drug, which can be “reverse engineered” in a day at most and “knocked off”, i.e., be production ready, in less than a month. If you can offer a better WORKING model than what we have developed in the last hundred years let us know. A model that satisfies both sides of the trade and not just those who prefer instant gratification.
“consider the fact that years of testing and hundreds of millions of dollars worth of pharmaceutical innovation is compacted in a drug, which can be “reverse engineered” in a day at most and “knocked off”, i.e., be production ready, in less than a month.”
It’s so horrible when people can compete like this! We must not have unbridled competition! We should pass the anti-dog-eat-dog law!
No, you just have to wait a few more years or whatever left of the patent life before you can have it all legally and free. Is it that much to ask for something you would never ever had otherwise?
What you are suggesting is the future distribution of something that have been created under present conditions. How can not you, as a lawyer, see the legal (and ethical) consequences of your paradox? You just keep longing for the nirvana of instant gratification.
Andras,
Maybe you should consider getting raped a bit. Is that too much to ask for something you would never ever had otherwise?
“. Is it that much to ask for something you would never ever had otherwise?”
yes. it’s too much to ask. And you are not “asking” . This is Orwellian doubletalk. Patents are forced on people. It’s not voluntary. Don’t pretend you are “asking”. This sounds like the evil IRS calling us “customers” and saying it the income tax is “voluntary.”
Stephan,
Your response shows total lack of understanding or worse.
When an inventor files for a patent he voluntarily gives up his secrets. He has a choice not to do it. By definition, he created something new, unique and practical. The series of events starts there. All the other events are consequennces of this first one.
Patents are not forced on people. People are happy to accept the results of patents even if some with no patience. These want it all and want it now. Kids, mentally!
Patents may result in forcing some who are skilled in the art though as all property rights are a two way street. Don’t worry, you won’t be affected. The 3D printer as your alternative to offer shows that you do not have a clue about chemistry. But you can still enjoy the benefits.
p.s. watch your blood pressure, whipping up hatred can be dangerous.
“Andras”:
Yes, but in most cases, in a free market, without patents, he would have to divulge such information as part of marketing his product. So he is not giving up, in most cases, what he would not have had to reveal anyway. Anyway, in a world without your patent monopolies, people can choose to keep whatever they want secret, but they might find it hard to monetarily profit off of it that way.
It’s not “by definition” at all. It’s by determination of a state bureaucrat interpreting arbitrary and artificial state regulations.
Most patent lawsuits are aimed at companies who independently invented the idea someone else patented.
You are a liar and or moron. They are forced on the victims, and those victims are not happy about it.
Stephan,
You blinked, you said yes to one of my sentence, though you followed it up with a “but…”.
Watch out, your rage is dissipating.
You talk generalities without knowing anything about pharma patents and the underlying chemistry and biology and their economics.
And even your generalities are in fault. The definition of an inventor is what I have given, you should know. Then it is by definition.
All lawsuits are based on alleged conflicts, not just patent lawsuits. Ending up in court is still better than by being clubbed by a gang in anarchy. The pharma patent system works! It works so well that even you have to invent this ridiculously stupid “3D printer” idea to attack it. Congratulations, now, you are almost an inventor!
BTW, Could you tell me one pharma patent that is forced on you and prevented you from inventing anything?
Talking about liars. Why did not you take up my challenge and come to a fact finding tour about B&L? You seem to be too eager to build your castles on quicksand.
And yes, I must be a moron, let myself be dragged down to your level. But I could not resist, I just had to call your bluff.
On the other hand, I have to thank you again. Without your assistance I could never have the chance to understand IP this deep. Please, carry on.
Andras,
You talk about chemistry, biology and economics without understanding logic.
Andras,
The concentration camps also “work”. However, that does not mean either that they are based on sound science, nor that they are consistent with any specific ethical framework.
Your posts are some of the worst excuses for stupidity and ignorance of other people’s rights that I encountered. You fail both as a scientist and as a member of society.
Andras,
your argument could be confusing cause and effect. The costs are not given, they are influenced by the decisions the producers make. By arguing that the costs are too high, you leave open the possibility that this is the consequence of lack of competition (and thereby making IP into a self-fulfilling prophecy). So on a scientific level, the argument is invalid. On the emotional level, it’s just like Stephan / Rand said: you’re whining. It’s the appeal to emotions fallacy.
dont see the big deal about pharmaceutical companies having to worry about generic knock-offs. if lack of patents stops pharma-corps from investing in new drugs, then non-profit companies will start springing up and do the job instead. even without IP laws, there will still be a demand for new drugs, and the market will respond accordingly. all it means is that a company cant make one single drug and expect to bank all the profits for 20 years.
And suing whomever makes innovations in the production, improvement or formula for said drug
Daniel,
By definition, the innovators are free to innovate if theirs is real innovation.
Generics are glad to have the Originals and their patents. They are the generics’ life blood. The interactions between those two have a history of about hundred years. Property rights are finely tuned to both sides satisfaction. Even more, there is a mechanism to adapt to changes if necessary.
What non-profits are you talking about? The academia which is highly subsidized by the state? Disease support groups? Maybe, but the money they can mobilize is magnitudes less than what is required for research. Or you, who does not even want to pay for what we already have?
I agree, there always be demand. However, the real question is “Will there be supply?”
The declared objective of the IP laws is that. Does the non-IP regime dare to declare that? It does not even recognize the inventor as unique. Changing a regime involves all aspects of the current working model not just the cannibalization of it.
So go back to your drawing board.
@Andras
“When an inventor files for a patent he voluntarily gives up his secrets. He has a choice not to do it.”
When a criminal picks up a gun and uses it to rob people, this is completely voluntary. The criminal has a choice not to do it. His victims however are forced to give up their money.
When an inventor files for a patent, what he essentially does is apply for a license to call on the power of the state to shutdown his competitors. Using patents to sue your competitors is no different from hiring a gang of criminals to go harass, beat up or lock up your competitors.
@Joris August 25, 2011 at 3:54 pm
I don’t know why I feel inclined to respond to something so idiotic, but I can’t seem to help myself.
Do you walk on your hands? You head is on the wrong end!
When a victim uses the police to protect him from a robber, do you believe the victim is depriving the robber of his property? After if it wasn’t for the police, he would be free to rob you at will. The INJUSTICE!! Twarting competition so!!
Mises commented on this kind of bass-ackwards thinking here:
http://mises.org/libprop/lpsec5.asp
In relevant part, he says:
When I use my own property (let’s say a piece of wood and some tools) to build something (let’s say a chair), I have not committed any kind of crime. I have not violated the Non-Aggression principle in any way.
When I sell that chair to someone who agrees to buy it from me, neither of us has done anything wrong.
When a person who has a patent on making chairs (4-legged devices you can sit on) sues me and prevents me (or asks the agents of the state to prevent me) from using my own property to build chairs, then he (the patent holder) is the one who committed an act of aggression. He (and anyone who assists him in committing that act of aggression) is the criminal.
When I use my piece of wood and my tools to build a chair, I in no way cause damage to his property. My actions in no way rearrange the atoms that make up his property.
Joris,
Let’s investigate your chair example applied to pharmaceuticals:
The level of these are exhausted long time ago and those compounds are public long time ago minus twenty years. That is still at least about a good fifty years ago. Again, they are now public, thanks to the patent laws, so you can make them free.
The level we are talking about is a few steps away from the closest known compounds. Making anything like this withour purpose is just making waste. Not only cost you making them but you have to spend money on waste management as well. So when someone complains that a patent prevents independent discoveries they ignore this fact. And when you claim that you are not allowed to use your property you ignore the fact that you don’t have that property as you have no reason to have it. You just simply don’t waste resources to have something without a purpose. (To translate this to an IT guy : you don’t pile together bits just to have a bunch of bits.) A compound of an invention and its purpose has to come hand in hand to have the potential of being economical. Pharma patents are utility patents. It is not enough to claim a new compound you have to claim its utility as well. Although the utility what was not claimed can be claimed by others but that will be a much weaker patent than a composition of matter patent. Pharma hardly ever risk these. It just does not worth it. They stay with novel chemical entities to have the composition of matter side as well.
I hope this has clarified things.
“There is, in their eyes, no difference worth mentioning between a man’s paying a tax or a fine imposed by a magistrate, or his buying a newspaper or admission to a movie.”
What is the difference, Wildberry? Is not the difference that in the former case the tax must be paid for violence will result if he does not pay it? The newspaper can go unpurchased, but the tax is not based on a service you choose.
I think you have more to learn from the quote you provide here than anyone else.
To Joris and Matthew:
One measure of wisdom is the ability to distinguish one thing from another.
Joris, you cannot distinguish your complaint from your assumptions. Implicit in your example is a situation that does not normally exist. Why do you assume that “chair” is patented? Because it makes your conclusion seem plausible if you assume that “patent” means that someone can, in any way that is relevant to this discussion, do what you say they can do with the technology “chair”. What you complain of being prevented from doing is not prevented at all, and in fact preventing such a travesty is an explicit objective of patent law, by way of the “non-obvious” standard and the limited term. Consequently, your entire argument here is specious. Pick an example that is realistic, and see if your complaint holds up.
Matthew, do you choose which laws you will obey? As you know, I presume, the answer is yes and no. One of the greatest gifts we have, which I’m sure you do not appreciate, is the fact that you can choose to oppose a law, and actually have been granted the right to repeal unpopular laws by a government designed primarily to protect your right to do so. You can’t seem to distinguish between those things in which you are victimized (i.e. being robbed at gunpoint) and those things for which you must, as a reasonable adult living in a complex society, assume some degree of personal responsibility for.
You are perfectly happy to enjoy the personal security of living under the protection of government, for example, free from worry that the tanks will be aimed at you, or will roll into your town in enforced occupation, as they are done in truly oppressive states, let’s say Syria or Lybia as two contemporary examples. Yet you speak as though being required to pay property tax or a speeding fine is the equivalent to being unjustly sent to the gulag, or shelled by the guns of your own people.
If, for example, you chose to invest your energy into reducing or eliminating taxes altogether, do you think you would need to have a tank, or that your activities would land you in the gulag?
People like you are whining babies, in my view, who want to stomp their feet and cry that someone is supposed to make you feel better, while taking none of the adult responsibility required to actually create the future you desire. You expect it is “supposed” to happen the way you want, because you are unhappy. You speak of personal liberty, yet expect that it is a “given”, rather than a “taken”.
Mises says what he does, in my view, because he probably couldn’t imagine he would be interpreted from the perspective of such a spoiled brat. What you have to learn, I doubt you are capable of understanding.
I did not assume that ” “chair” is patented”. I used it as an example to show how the whole concept of ‘patents’ is incompatible with property rights and liberty (as in the non-aggression principle).
If I use my own property to produce something (whether it’s a chair or a pill or a microchip or a spaceship) and I do not cause physical damage to another human being or his property then I have done nothing wrong. I have not violated the non-aggression principle.
If my neighbor sees what I am doing and he decides to use his property to produce a product that is similar or even identical to what I just produced then that is fine. He did not violate the non-aggression principle.
If I decide to prevent my neighbor from producing a product that is similar to what I just produced because I spent 3 years planning and testing and my neighbor just watched me and copied (some of) my work, then I am the aggressor.
Joris,
If you want to use an example of something to show that patents are imcompatible with property rights, you should pick an example that has relevant similraities to what you oppose.
If you use an irrelevant example, your argument is irrelevant to your point.
Your example is irrelevant because it does not share similarities with what you are trying to oppose.
Whether “imitation” as you are using it here is prohibited or not is a function of what assumptions you make about the existence and legitimacy of IP. If you presume that the only “just” world is one which does not have patents, then you also have to acknowledge the consequences of not having them.
Most IP opponents, like you, don’t do that. They assume the consequences away, and try to hide that fact by choosing to describe situations which do not characterize even the way current patent laws operate.
Patents are a unique animal, and cannot be simply dismissed as something “wrong” by constructing a ludicrous example and then saying “see? It’s horrible”.
The oldest existing patent is no more that 24 years old. Any former patent older than that is in the public domain. Those are the facts. Chairs are in the public domain.
@Wildberry
Every human is owner of his own body and has the right to acquire property (either by taking something out of its natural unowned state by mixing one’s labor with it, by trading with others, by receiving gifts etc).
If you own something you can do with it whatever you want. You can use it, you can sell it, you can abandon it, you can destroy it etc. You can decide who is allowed to use your property: a neighbor, a friend, your family or just you.
If someone tries to use or sell or destroy your property without your permission, then that person is committing an act of aggression and you have the right to stop him. You even have the right to use force if necessary.
Every human has these rights. Every human is master of his body and property. This means that every human also has the obligation to respect other people’s property rights. You are only allowed to do things that otherwise would be considered a violation of the non-aggression principle if someone first violates your rights. You are not allowed to initiate force, but you are allowed to respond using force because by not respecting your property rights, the other party relieved you of your obligation to respect his property rights.
Under a patent system, people who have a patent initiate force against other people who have not violated anyone’s property rights. The use of patents to restrict people from peacefully using their own property is a violation of the non-aggression principle and therefor anti-libertarian.
If you initiate force, then you commit an act of aggression. Your reason for doing so is irrelevant. It doesn’t matter if you are doing it to protect your monopoly or because you don’t like your competitor or because the gods told you to or because you believe it is for “the greater good”.
fiat iustitia, ne pereat mundus
@Joris September 12, 2011 at 9:50 am
I understand your argument, and you have some good points. Let me ask you a couple of questions:
1. Do you believe that any of these human rights, natural or otherwise, can exist without some form of institutionalized coercive power to enforce them?
2. Do you believe that all rights including property rights, are a human device, or do you believe they exist and/or have a source of being other than from the endeavors of human societies?
3. Do you acknowledge any utilitarian arguments for what rights should and should not be established and enforced by society?
4. In general, do you find the “free-rider” problem an important consideration in your analysis?
5. Do you accept the translation of “fiat iustitia, ne preat mnudus” ascribed to Kant, and if so, who are the “rascals” and who gets to decide?
Comments on this entry are closed.