John Fields wrote:
> On 26 Apr 2006 02:00:13 -0700, [email protected] wrote:
> >John Fields wrote:
> >> On 25 Apr 2006 05:41:27 -0700, [email protected] wrote:
> >> >Thanks for your help on this issue CS. I will go out on a limb still
> >> >further, and say that a switch to such a system looks likely and
> >> >beneficial. More and more these questions are being brought up in
> >> >mainstream press, e.g.
> >> >
> >> >http://www.iht.com/articles/2005/10/07/opinion/edsmiers.php
> >> >
> >> >http://www.ifla.org/documents/infopol/copyright/ipmyths.htm
> >> ---
> >> The mainstream press???
> >> LOL,
> >> You cite a badly thought out and unimplementable plan by an
> >> obviously socialist publicist, and a set of opinions decrying the
> >> protection of intellectual property with an avenue provided for
> >> dissemination, but with no avenue provided for disagreement.
> >> Yeah, that's the kind of shit I can get behind...
> >In what way is a more free market "socialist" ?
> >What part about letting entrepeneurs use publicly available information
> >to create products for consumers is socialist?
> The part that makes you think that just because information is
> publically available it's free to use indiscriminately. It's not.
> We live in a capitalistic society in the US, and when the
> information is disclosed, for the betterment of mankind as a whole,
> the discloser of the information is given, in return, the privilege
> of being able to use the idea, exclusively, for his own financial
> gain for a limited time.
> In a socialistic society such as you advocate the idea would, at the
> moment of disclosure, become the property of the collective. Or,
> perhaps, from your point of view, it would become the property of
> the collective at the moment of conception and failure to divulge it
> would result in punishment of some kind.
> >If anything is socialist or communist about this issue, it is
> >government creation of a monopoly.
> You need to brush up on your social studies.
> Monopolies are anathema to socialism and communism.
You mean like, the French train system? Or the soviet union's gas
companies? Those monopolies are anathema to socialism and communism?
Maybe you mean like Cuba's health care monopoly? Or perhaps China's
I don't think so. Government enforced monopolies are very much
socialistic or communistic, as I understand these terms.
> >Patents were originally
> >monarchistic - allowing those favored by the crown to control a market.
> But that's no longer true, so what's your point?
> The only parallel between that and what's done now is that in return
> for disclosure (for not keeping the idea secret), the government
> (the monarchy) will give the discloser (the favored person) a
> license to a monopoly for a limited time. Fair exchange, I'd say.
> >> >Two factors that I see leading to a paradigm shift on this issue:
> >> >
> >> >1) Communication technology. As people are better able to communicate,
> >> >those who would try to prevent communication to maintain an IP monopoly
> >> >are left with little recourse but to model their business plans in a
> >> >more capitalisitic fashion. Unenforceable legislation is doomed.
> >> ---
> >> Tricky. You spout a lot of shit and then end it with a sentence
> >> which is true, making it seem like what went before must also,
> >> therefore, be true.
> >> ---
> >> >2) Corruption. As IP laws have grown and changed, the corruption has
> >> >also grown. Now, it is easier to see the problem because people are
> >> >using the system in more and more detrimental ways. Nobody minds too
> >> >much if e.g. publishers can skim a little more profit, but when
> >> >corporations don't let you re-plant your seeds or claim to own your
> >> >DNA, and when certain prime numbers are illegal, it's clear something
> >> >is wrong.
> >> ---
> >> What's wrong is that people like you report not the unvarnished
> >> truth, but just enough of the truth with enough of the details
> >> obscured to suit your cause.
> >> For example, let's look at the issue of genetically engineered
> >> high-yield corn.
> >> It's not like the formula for it came with no effort expended and,
> >> once it was developed, the deals made regarding its cultivation were
> >> unilateral.
> >> Basically, it's buy the seed, plant it, and sell (say) three times
> >> what you could with the old seed corn, but if you want to use the
> >> new seed you have to agree to buy it every time you plant a new crop
> >> instead of saving some of the harvest to use as seed corn.
> >> If you don't want to agree to the deal, then don't.
> >Unfortunately that's not an option under current intellectual property
> >law. You aren't asked if you want to agree to the deal; rather, you
> >are forced.
> That's not true; no one is forcing you to buy the genetically
> engineered corn. You can always plant plain old corn and there'll
> always be a market for it. However, if you want a threefold
> increase in your output then you buy the genetically engineered corn
> at the price asked. Simple. Someone spent a lot of money taking
> the risk of figuring out how to get that yield increase, and they
> need to be compensated for that. That compensation includes their
> being able to maximize their return on their investment, and it's
> really none of your business how they do that. But, as always, if
> you have a , take it to the courts.
The problem is that most genetic patents are made on pre-existing
sequences. Sure, a lot of work went into doing the sequencing, but
doing that work was the choice of the workers. If they didn't see fair
compensation coming, why did they do that work?
> >> But if you do, and you raise a second crop with seeds which you
> >> agreed not to plant, then you're clearly in violation of the
> >> contract.
> >Yes, if you agreed to such a contract. Instead, people who haven't
> >agreed to such contracts are being shut down.
> It's called competition.
> If you want to be in business you do what it takes to get your share
> of the market. If you don't, someone else will.
> But, that's not what this is about, is it?
> What you're advocating is that any and all information disclosed be
> placed in the public domain, which is just plain old socialism.
You have it exactly backwards. Last time I checked, socialism was not
defined as information placed in the public domain. I'm only
suggesting that we allow competition. IP laws currenty forbid it, in a
government controlled system.
Not that I'm entirely against socialist institutions, for example
public libraries and roads, but in this case I'm making the case
against one of them: so-called intellectual property legislation.
You have to at least admit that this is a case of governments deciding
the course of industry and distribution. Doesn't mean you don't like
it or you don't think it's a good idea, but at least admit it's
Cheers - shevek