Why should I pay for patent/copyright protection

[theriverburns]

My government tells me I have to compete with the lowest global bidder for wages and they are not going to do anything to protect my job.

Well, why the hell should I allow my tax dollars to protect profits of these same global companies through price-fixing patent protection?

Crap, let them compete with the lowest bidder just like I do.

Allowing the lowest bidder to create and sell product's/service's at the lowest FREE MARKET price will benefit the consumer. Won't it? Won't that work just like allowing corporations to ship jobs overseas in search of labor markets who offer the lowest possible wages.

[GAspnes]

1. that is a brilliant argument

it's unfortunate that copyright/patent are in the Constitution. Wonder what the FF were thinking?

[leftyandproud]

10. well..

the original, unedited wording went like this: "..that among these are the right to life, liberty, and property"

copyrights/patents are protection of property

[Trek234]

23. You really should read the whole constitution

It is more than "we the people" and "life libery".

The constitution provides for what we know as intelectual property specifically. It is derived from that - not what you quote.

[yowzayowzayowza]

2. The legal protection...

of intellectual property works both ways... protecting individuals as well as corporations.

Don't understand your consumer correlation. Sorry.

[theriverburns]

6. It will beneffit the consumer by

allowing products to be sold at the lowest possible price. Life saving pharmeceuticals that are marked up a few thousand times come to mind. Is that what you mean by "Don't understand your consumer correlation. Sorry." If not, my bad.

[yowzayowzayowza]

9. Price Gouging

Though I would agree that in some instances social need should outweigh classic capitalistic price gouging, intellectual property as a legal concept should not be diminished. Letz not throw out the baby with the bath water.

[theriverburns]

14. I am being somewhat sarcastic

however.......

[Muddleoftheroad]

11. Life saving drugs?

There won't be any new ones. Lacking patents, drug firms won't bother researching any.

[theriverburns]

16. There won't be any new ones. Lacking patents,

Do you really believe that innovations in capitalism would grind to a standstill if we eliminated patent protection?

How about if we shortened their duration?

How about this: Is it posible that if we lengthened patent protection that it may have the opposite effect?

[acerbic]

3. Patent/copyright protection is indeed evil and useless

Evil global companies like e.g.

http://www.xcor.com/

shouldn't be allowed to monopolize the results of their research and development. When they get those innovative rocket engines ready after spending a few million developing them, anyone should be allowed to copy them freely. That will speed up the progress of mankind. This coherent and intelligent idea really deserves discussion.

[Muddleoftheroad]

4. Discouraging development

Companies get paid by successful research. If you take that away, you discourage innovation.

[theriverburns]

7. You mean they should feel comfortable that

the years of work they put in won't be stolen?

Like the years an IT professional spends in getting an education and then helping to build a fledgling industry and then training his replacement who works for starchy foods?

[GAspnes]

5. it's not useless if you're the little guy

which is, of course, the reason for patents and copyrights in the first place -- so your intellectual effort cannot be stolen by someone with a bigger company, better lawyers and more money.

But the idea of reciprocity -- protect both the worker and the work, or protect neither -- that's an interesting thought.

[sandnsea]

13. Of course they can

Jesus they do it all the time. Look at Bill Gates ripping off the code for Windows. All they have to do is be evil enough to do it in the first place and lie enough to get out of it. Hell look at George Bush for chrissake.

[theriverburns]

8. Well Acerbic

Lets say we extend patent protection to 17 years? During that time no add-on research can be done by any company except the one who holds the patent. Does this speed up the progress of mankind? Firstly, patent protection can be overdone. Secondly, do you think that without it that there would be no invention? You had better give that misconception some serious thought......

Don't insult an idea before you think about it thouroughly.

[acerbic]

18. Double huh?

Did I misunderstand you? Were you not saying that there should be no patent/copyright protection? If not, what were you saying?

Lets say we extend patent protection to 17 years? During that time no add-on research can be done by any company except the one who holds the patent.

So do you believe that now if there's a patent on something, nobody else is allowed to research it?

[theriverburns]

19. nobody else is allowed to research it?

Didn't say that but there is the definite possibility of either a lack of incentive to do so by anyone but who holds the patent stifling add-ons or improvements. And, also, the blank check idea that harsh competition is good when it comes to labor but bad when it comes to capital needs to be disputed and discussed.

[acerbic]

20. How do patents stifle add-ons or improvements?

Didn't say that but there is the definite possibility of either a lack of incentive to do so by anyone but who holds the patent stifling add-ons or improvements.

As I've understood, anyone is totally free to develop add-ons and improvements to anything and patent them if they are original innovations by themselves. Anyone who actually knows patent and copyright law, please feel free to tell if I'm wrong.

[theriverburns]

21. I don't know, Acerbic

I am probably wrong. But I have read arguments for both. More that agree with you, of course.

[yowzayowzayowza]

22. "free to develop add-ons and improvements"

Sure, though you'll have to negotiate utilization of the underlying patent before you can market the product.

[theriverburns]

24. you'll have to negotiate utilization

of the underlying patent before you can market the product.

I bet that really provides incentive to innovate and improve exsting patents.....

[yowzayowzayowza]

26. Sure it does.

If the biggest corporation in the werld has the patent for the wheel and lil ole you have one for the axle, it is in the interest of both parties to negotiate a deal to produce a product that neither has full intellectual control of. NO?

[acerbic]

25. Of course, IF the product is an improved version

...that still uses the underlying patent too. If it's an add-on, I don't think the original patent holder has anything to say.

[sandnsea]

12. People are too brainwashed

I'm so discouraged tonight. People will flush themselves right down the toilet and protect the interests that are pulling the handle. And it won't do any good to go to any foreign country either because it'll be the same way there in ten years anyway. The corporations have won. Until the people are starving and there's 4 or 5 families to a house, there won't be any change. I don't believe in any of it right now, not freedom, not democracy, not the vote, not any of it. Maybe tomorrow will be a better day.

[haymaker]

15. Interesting, why should the US government

protect your idea if you are only going to take that idea and use low wage/unregulated labor, and do so where environmentally damaging industry is allowed, to produce the idea in question? Is that your question? Because if it is, it is a good one.

Sounds like a good bill.

[yowzayowzayowza]

17. In that context...

The property used to harm labor/markets/environment need not be intellectual in nature. No?