That would be Monsanto. Some info on it below.

http://www.snopes.com/politics/business/mpa.asp

http://recipes.howstuffworks.com/mon...ving-seeds.htm

Something more relevant to Linux users which shows how ridiculous copyright, patent and trademark ownership can be:

http://tuxdeluxe.org/node/107

1 members found this post helpful.

Huh? I really don't see how that relates, explain please.

With respect to "own", did I say otherwise? Absolutely, each sentient breather of the common air should be the sole original owner of the products of their individual work! That is the foundation of pretty much all human activity.

The difficulty is when you extend the idea of property ownership to include thoughts. "Ideas", thoughts, all knowledge, truth, facts, understanding, patterns, logical constructs, sequences, etc. etc... i.e. ideas, have an existence independent of any individual who may think them (i.e. discover them) at any given time and cannot be claimed as "property". They remain the exclusive property of an individual only so long as they disclose them to no one else! Extending artificial legal monopoly on a thought to one individual over all others is a horrendous idea - an intellectual obscenity!

With respect to "control", as distinct from the natural control that comes with ownership, we must ask, how far, how long, how much, what form... that is really a very nebulous concept! "Control" is the devil in the details!

Well, again you must put some definitions to the following...

"produce intellectual works" - Simply think a thought or produce some useful product from it? Actually produce or simply buy a monopoly of control?

"legal instruments" - Honest, fair profit comes by exchange of your product for something else, ususally money, of equal value. Profiting by legal instruments is inherently unfair to those from whom the profit is extracted as they get nothing of equal value. That is the essence of artificial monopolies. Who has any moral right to grant such a thing!

"allow" - Do you mean facilitate, guarantee, give preference...?

"worthy profit" - Ah! now the meat of the matter! Define please, "worthy" and "profit". In whose eyes? At whose cost? On what terms?

That is a "Sky is falling!" reaction, and quite a stretch from anything I've said or implied, so once more I'll have to ask just what you mean by that.

But take this case, real enough, nothing cleverly contrived here...

Fred and Barney are both smart, industrious guys who do not know each other but are alive on the planet at the same time.

Fred and Barney have a common interest and study the same books in their respective libraries.

Within a short time of each other, Fred and Barney have similar ideas within their subject of interest.

Both are very motivated to turn their idea into a reality and work very hard in their respective garages to that end. The ideas and resources are similar so it takes about the same time.

Fred hires a lawyer and patents the idea, while Barney who has less money decides to put it all into tooling for his gizmo, producing a better gizmo in the end.

They both hit the market about the same time and both are making good profits - until Fred sues Barney for infringement of "his" intellectual property!

Fred uses a portion of his profits to hire more lawyers and "defend his rights" against everyone else who had the same, admittedly obvious idea. Fred shifts production offshore, quality falls and the same crappy product is the only one available for the next 20 years...

Poor Barney loses everything and dies a disillusioned alcoholic...

Fred and Barney both had the same good idea and worked equally hard to make it a reality. Both were successful! The only difference was that Fred hired leaglly licensed thugs to knee-cap the competition while Barney simply expected a fair (worthy) return on his work...

Now, tell me again, how did this "protect" the little guy?
Why was Fred "worthy" of return on his labor while Barney was not?
Why was Fred entitled to ALL the profit while Barney was entitled to none?

Answer: Fred paid for the blessing of the high priests of intellectual property, Barney was an infidel...

As I have pointed out before, it is only a religion, you just have to believe in it because it cannot survive closer scrutiny. The very official, very profitable Church of Intellectual Property.

But the sky won't really fall without it...

If you really want to understand how it works, here is an excellent book on the subject, free to read online, or buy in print:

Against Intellectual Monopoly
by Michele Boldrin and David K. Levine

1 members found this post helpful.

First of all, why would you think that people would not eat (i.e. be able to make money off their work) without intellectual property "protection"? Can you show some evidence for that?

Actually, this is a commonly held but false conception and is really just another version of the "Sky will fall without intellectual property!" mantra that most modern humans have been trained to recite.

But it didn't work out so well for Barney (see previous post). The fruits of his innovation and hard labor were literally taken from his mouth and given to someone else, so he gave up and turned to the bottle. (Not an entirely fictional example either, in case you care to know - great violence can be done to men's lives by such legal injustice, and for what...)

The truth is actually the opposite of what you have posited: patents, copyrights - all forms of intellectual property "protection" can be easily shown to stifle innovation, discouraging development because of, or simply from fear of infringement of some patent.

For a very good introduction to how this actually works, read just the first chapter, or two of the book I also linked in the previous post, Against Intellectual Monopoly.

You really should read the book, and the multitude of other resources available. But please at least consider this set of excerpts from chapter 1, concerning James Watt's steam engine patents:

There is plenty of actual historical fact here to at least give you pause to consider!

But again, that simply is not true. I have no desire to get into a deck washing contest, but I would suggest that you review whatever facts you have at hand, and their sources, and try to honestly gauge harmful effects against any perceived good done.

On a level playing field, in the absence of artificial monopolies, the profit advantage goes to first to market, and best product in its class - that is, the incentive really is to the innovative, and to the best!

But as I ask you to consider, it does not incentivize innovation! That simply is not true.

But more importantly, and this really is the main point: attempting to treat innovative ideas and thoughts as property, intellectual property, is a major cause of massive injustice and discouagement for the vast majority of the species, all for the benefit of a very few. It is itself a major cause of economic injustice, the great disparity in distribution and control of wealth and production, and a similarly major roadblock for those who would improve their own lot and that of others.

Differences in application of intellectual property law, use or abuse, is literally the difference between a Bill Gates and an Aaron Schwartz.

I am not proposing that abolition of intellectual property would immediately bring about that imaginary utopia. But I guarantee it would eliminate the injustices caused by it, and create the only genuinely level playing field for all, not just those who already have their wealth - and it would be a big first step in the right direction!

1 members found this post helpful.

I think that the fair minded people (meaning not the protection racket thugs) who defend intellectual property tend to be those who make their money from things like niche software development and music creation. It's those small businesses for whom the abolition of intellectual property would mean an end to business. I don't think there are any solutions acceptable to that group of people.
So I am torn on the matter as I think intellectual property is a fallacy but I realise that its destruction would mean a lot of people having to join large corporations or compete with them and change their business models. Perhaps that is the difficult cost of something which would otherwise improve the world?

@ BridgeTheMasterBuilder

I had intended to respond to you in our other shared thread with more recommended reading on Unix.

Instead I spent more than my alotted LQ time writing my responses in this thread - time well spent I hope!

So, while I must leave now, let me recommend that you add the book I have twice cited above to your list - time well spent!

Against Intellectual Monopoly
by Michele Boldrin and David K. Levine

2 members found this post helpful.

But I would suggest once more, this is the "Sky will fall without intellectual property!" response.

To be sure, some business models would have to change! But all for the better!

I think the major benefit would be to the independent and small business because they would be instantly free of threats and abuses by the too-big-to-fight corporate interests and for the first time free to market their own ideas and innovations without fear! The major difference would be that they too, would need to give up the concept of "I thought of it first! It is mine and mine alone!".

Instead of going out of business, I think we would see a huge shift to the independents and away from the monolithic corporate overlords. I would expect a literal explosion of innovation, fresh ideas, rapid advancement of knowledge and technology, and greatly expanded economic activity.

Instead of profit by killing your competition, I think a much healthier climate of competition by making it better with cheerful acknowledgment of the accomplishments of others, would evolve. What we used to call "good sportsmanship".

To use an example of good sportsmanship currently in the news, like the Brazilian fans after their defeat by Germany yesterday... at the end of the game they stood and applauded their winning opponents... When our profits no longer come at the expense of others, I think we will find that we recover the more natural human responses of empathy, respect for others and the ability to applaud even those who got to the goal line before us.

1 members found this post helpful.

So, in that world, why would I spend a year of my working life innovating, for example, a better vacum cleaner. Why would I work on a niche market piece of software?
Of course, software will always end up being created as problems arise which need to be solved but the whole model would change and some business models would just disappear. Long term, of course, other models would survive but short term you'd have a lot of collapsed small businesses.
Then there are authors, particularly those of fictional works, most of them would not be able to make money from their craft. Nor would composers of all but one-time-use music.
This isn't a "sky is falling!" doom and gloom profecy just pointing out that not everybody who relies upon intellectual property for a living is a theiving parasite and the little man has to be looked after.

You're focusing too heavily on patents stifling development on a product after the product has been brought to market. And that's absolutely true, once a product has been brought to market, patents stifle and slow down innovation, you'll get no argument there. But that's not the issue at hand here. What you really need to be asking yourself is, "Would that product have even been invented or brought to market in the first place were it not for the protection offered by the patent system?". I would argue that the vast majority of products we enjoy today would not.

I have a couple of patents (well, my company holds them and I'm named as the inventor), mostly dealing with unique data processing algorithms that allow new measurements, or ways of making existing measurements in new/unique situations. We even have a product based around one of these, which is capable of making measurements in situations that no competitor can even dream of. I can tell you right now, with 100% certainty, that if the protection offered by the patent system did not exist, my boss would never have OK'd the $500k+ R&D investment required to develop that technology, and that product would not exist today.



Your scenario with Fred and Barney is a cute one, but unrealistic. The FAR more likely scenario is the following:

Barney is a smart, industrious guy with interest in a unique subject. He goes to the library and spends his time studies books on this subject, and becomes quite well versed in it. He becomes so well versed, that he comes up with a unique idea.

Barney is very motivated to turn his idea into a reality and works very hard in his garage to that end.

Barney doesn't have a lot of money, but he spends what he has on tooling for his gizmo, producing the best gizmo he can.

Barney's gizmo hits the market, and is well received. In fact it's so well received, that Fred purchases one in the store and thinks to himself, "Why is this device so expensive? I can build it cheaper".

Fred spends a week figuring out how the device works, and then he approaches a manufacturer to have it made. Fred picks a quality manufacturer, maybe even the same one as Barney, after all he wants to keep standards high.

Since Fred only invested a week of his time, he can afford to sell his knockoff gizmo for only two cents above cost, and he does so at the exact same stores where Barney is selling his! Customers who go to the store see two of what look and feel like the exact same product, only one of them is half the price. Naturally, they pick the cheaper option, and Barney gets cut out of the loop.

The only way Barney can compete is to lower the price of his gizmo to match the price of Fred's, and even then he only gets half the market share. But that price is too low, two cents profit can't pay back Barney's 401k that he had to borrow against to fund the development. It can't pay off the third mortgage Barney had to take out on his home because he spent three years of his life working full time in his garage trying to make his gizmo the best it can be.

Barney tries to sell his gizmo for the price he needs to sell it at to pay back his loans, but everybody buys Fred's gizmo instead. After a year, Barney is forced to declare bankruptcy.

Ten years later, Barney, still being an expert in his field, has another idea for a gizmo that he would like to bring to market. Haunted by his experience last time, he decides to ignore it and continue working in the coal mine instead.




This is a very realistic scenario, in fact it already happens today in places where patent protection is not well enforced. A company develops a product, sends it for manufacture in China, and the factory makes a few extra and sells them on street corners and black markets under a different name for a fraction of the cost. If these counterfeit goods were allowed to be sold in stores right alongside the original, nobody would buy the original, and the companies developing original products would go out of business. All you'd be left with is the factories churning out the same crap over and over again as cheaply as they can.

That's a nice sentiment, but it's not true. After decades of international trade and overseas manufacturing, one thing has become increasingly clear. People do not buy the first or the best (well some do, but they're a minority), people buy what's convenient and cheap. Just look at the decline of Mom & Pop stores and the explosion of Walmart and fast food restaurants. US manufacturing has all but disappeared, production has been moved to sweat shops in third world countries where it can be made as cheaply as possible, regardless of the quality, environmental impacts, or social impacts.

Ever hear people say that [insert any product here] isn't built like it used to? It's true. Quality and reliability have plummeted because that's not what people buy, people buy what's cheap. When it breaks in two years, they just buy another one. The companies that put their heart and soul into their products trying to make it the best it can be get under-priced by the sweat shop factories. Some have managed to stick around, but most have gone under. The ones that have stuck around, are usually the ones with patents on their products. The market has spoken...people want cheap, damn the consequences.

The same thing would happen without patent protection, but worse. Somebody would develop an amazing new product, and within a month somebody would rip it off and sell it for a few cents over cost. Driving the original developer out of the market. Keep it up for too long, and people will stop developing amazing new products...

I would LOVE to be proven wrong here, but I just don't see it. Patent law, copyright protection, intellectual property, etc., as I see it, is the only thing standing in the way of this happening on an even larger scale than it is already.

I don't think this is a sky-is-falling response, it's just an observation about humanity. If there is money to be made and no law to stop him, somebody will stab you and leave you bleeding on the side of the road without a moment's hesitation. Fred will rip off Barney's invention, cut him out of the market, and leave him to die without a second thought. Until you find a way to stop these people from being evil, you can't abolish the only laws that are keeping them in check.

Now I'm not saying the patent system is perfect, it's not. When Apple can patent rounded corners, and Amazon can patent taking pictures of things on a stool with lights, something is clearly broken. But the solution is to fix the problem, not to do away with patent law entirely. One of the BIG problems is the length of its effect. 30 years is way too long, especially in the current era of rapid development. It should be more like 5 years...give the developer time to re-coup their investment, and then let everyone else have at it.

In my admittedly unseasoned opinion this is the crux of the issue. I don't think you can do away with intellectual property (a term I do not like by the way) entirely, but it cannot be allowed to overstep its bounds either. Also, sort of related but in my humble opinion, copyright should also be automatically forfeit upon the death of all pertinent parties. It is utterly shameful to see works that rightfully belong to the public being held hostage by the estate of whoever created it or worse yet having third parties that were not involved purchase the rights and extending the copyright (which to the best of my knowledge can be done indefinitely in some situations.) I have aspirations of becoming a composer (of classical music - which thankfully is a potentially sustainable career where I live) and I know that the first thing I'm going to put in my will is a clause releasing any works I may have created into the public domain (or even sooner where possible.)

However, as a proponent of the free market (not to an extremist degree) I think even 5 years may be too long. Giving the developer a break is all well and good, but you need to take the consumer's interest into consideration as well. I don't know about other people but I don't necessarily buy whatever is cheapest with no regard for quality, but if somebody is incapable of competing in a fair economic environment then unfortunately they deserve to go out of business. Especially if another manufacturer can match your product while also incurring lower costs, to say nothing of objectively better products at the same or lower cost (or maybe even higher.) It's tough, but that's just how it is.

To show how messed up this concept can get*, take a look at my country's (Iceland) agricultural sector. As you might know there is a great deal of controversy regarding the country's relationship with the European Union. One of the main arguments against EU membership that you hear brought up all the time is the fact that Icelandic agriculture would essentially vanish because it is not even remotely competitive with EU prices. It is already heavily subsidized, some figures saying that subsidies comprise as much as 75% of farmers' income. Nationalism and general stupidity makes people think that Icelandic meat in particular is somehow better than foreign meat (it's not) and that it must be protected at all costs. There are certainly valid reasons to oppose the EU, but this is not one of them. Iceland just isn't suited for agriculture and it's not fair to punish the citizens in this way (due to import duties and tolls etc. it's not cheaper to import meat yourself - intentionally designed to artificially increase demand for domestic products.) If better products are available at a lower cost, it is immoral to deny access to them. Yes, I am well aware that Icelandic farmers would be out of work, but so be it - you lost.

Anyway, those are my two cents.

*It's of course not an identical scenario but the basic idea is the same.

1 members found this post helpful.

But that's the problem, it's not a fair economic environment when Company A had to incur the entire R&D cost to bring that product to market while Company B gets to reap all of the benefits and charge as little as possible. Company B had no R&D cost, so selling the product for 2 cents over cost is 2 cents of profit. Company A can't charge 2 cents over cost, because it would never reimburse them for the [possibly] millions of dollars they had to sink into R&D to develop it.

Product development and manufacturing is a "pay first, get paid second" game. If you do away with patent protection (in cases where the patents are justified, not like the patent trolls that are plaguing the industry right now), then you eliminate the "get paid" second half of the deal, and all you're left with is "pay first, bankruptcy", which isn't a sustainable business policy


You may be right, 5 years might still be too long, I was just throwing that out there. I don't know where the "sweet spot" is, it could be more like 2 years, but it's definitely shorter than 30 years.

I know, that part of your post wasn't lost on me. As I said, you can't do away with them entirely I don't think.

Oh I know, I wasn't disagreeing with you, just clarifying a point.

Maybe the fixed length is the problem? Maybe when a company/individual files a patent, they should be required to file all relevant documentation about the costs required to develop that technology. Then there could be quarterly reports/audits to monitor the profit made from the sales of any product based on that technology. When their profit off of the technology exceeds the initial investment by, say, 20% (or the business goes under), then the patent expires. Of course you could have a ~5 year cap on it as well, to prevent failed implementations from locking out development by other parties for too long.

It would be difficult to implement correctly and probably very difficult to police (companies lying about initial development costs or profits), but it might result in the best of both worlds. If done correctly, easy no-brainer patents would expire almost immediately since they took no effort to develop. Large developments and highly profitable patents would expire almost immediately as well since the company would quickly recoup their investment. The only patents that would stick around for an extended period of time are the ones that took a lot of development and produce little profit, in which case, why would other parties be interested anyway?

1 members found this post helpful.

Actually no, I am mostly focusing on the injustice inherent in the concept of intellectual property.

I also included the excerpts from the linked book (sorry if that was too long...) to illustrate that economic and incentive arguments in favor of intellectual property, largely have no basis in fact.

Well, as I said, business models based on intellectual property concepts would necessarily have to change - and that would include development models as well. But it is by no means a given that development would not take place! (The sky will fall argument again...)

In fact, I think the winning arguments, and my own experience (including my own IP-free development of a few specialized measurement systems, oddly enough) all say that it would increase and improve... but there is little point in engaging in that deck washing contest I mentioned, so I'll just observe:

But back to my own main point...

No. It was the actual, real destruction of a man's work, his future and eventually his life, due entirely to the inherent injustice of intellectual property law. Nothing cute about it. I watched it happen.

And the real horror is that it was not unique or anomalous.

I also added the more public examples of those who gain vastly out of proportion to any value they produce (Bill Gates) and those who suffer unendurable consequences vastly out of proportion to any harm they might have done (Aaron Schwartz), as examples of the inherent injustice of the concept of intellectual property.

But those don't seem to be of much concern to anyone when there is profit to be made. A very sad commentary on the current state of the species...

Could it be that you are more cynical than even I am!

I have more confidence and hope in the human species that that! And my experience has been much better than that when people are able to make choices and are allowed to hope in their own futures, they are better than that.

The difficulty is that all those examples you cite are how people react when forced to work within an economic system that deprives them largely of hope, produces gain only at someone else's loss, and leaves them little choice other than dog-eat-dog, lowest cost is all and damn the consequences! Intellectual property law is a huge contributor to that environment.

Change that system, and you change people's perceptions, reactions and expectations. One injustice that goes uncorrected, gives birth to a dozen new ones.

Well, I repeat, it was intellectual property law that provided the means for Fred to leave Barney to die. It was intellectual property law that gave birth to this particular evil, and its acceptance by all those around them that sanctioned it. The very concept is a gross evil. Without that concept, Barney would have enjoyed the fruits of his labor, as would Fred have done too.

But more importantly, your statement, "If there is money to be made and no law to stop him, somebody will stab you and leave you bleeding on the side of the road without a moment's hesitation", deserves a comment.

When two strangers meet in a dark alley, or along some untravelled road, it is not the local code of law that mediates the encounter! It is only what is in their hearts, and by that I mean mainly that it is whatever respect they have for others, nothing else, that determines the outcome.. Among most, when in doubt, respect shown to another is almost universally acknowledged and returned despite barriers of language and culture.

The only people that do real harm, and leave you bleeding in the ditch, are those who think their actions have the sanction of some law or social code - they are not restrained by respect and are usually motivated and enabled by profit of some form. The more "lawful" their standing in their own eyes, the more dangerous they are!

As a simple principle of human nature then, this is another argument for doing away with arbitrary law that gives one human advantage over another.

We really must learn to live by mutual respect, and such law as we must have must show that respect and do real justice - for all - or we don't have a hope in hell as a species! It must be respect and regard for justice that stands between us and all those evils, not corporate law (or Ferengi Rules of Acquisition)!

If we can learn respect, and value justice, every other good, including guaranteed fair profit, will follow!

What about the injustice in people stealing and making money off of someone else's work, with absolutely no legal consequences?

That's not what those excerpts say. That quote only focuses on the harm done by the patent after the product was introduced, it says nothing about whether or not the product would have even been introduced in the first place were it not for patent law. It does mention it at the end, but doesn't go into any detail. That is the other side of the argument, that you seem to be ignoring.

Change to what? How do you propose companies get around the problem? Let's take a quick scenario. Company A has a great idea for a new invention. They invest a million dollars into R&D to develop the product, all with zero return. They release the product, at this point they are MASSIVELY in the hole on the project. On release day, Company B buys one, reverse engineers it, and starts manufacturing their own. Their total investment is $10k. They label it the same and sell it in the same stores as the original for half the price. People buy the cheaper one, Company A doesn't make enough profit off of the device to recoup their initial investment, and goes out of business.

Now which part of this scenario would change, and to what?
Would Company A not invest a million dollars into the product? Then how would it get made?
Would somebody else not rip it off? That's putting way too much faith in humanity, there will always be people ready and willing to rip someone off to make a quick buck.
Would people not buy the cheaper option? That's putting way too much faith in the general public.

Just saying "business models need to change" is easy, but what do you propose they change to? How do you get around the problem? The multi-billion dollar counterfeit industry is evidence enough that this IS a problem that does need addressing. The solution for basically every government on the planet is the same, IP and patent law. If you've got something better, then throw it out there.


I don't. I'm not saying everybody is evil, certainly the majority aren't, but evil people ARE out there, you can't just ignore them. All it takes is one to break down the entire system you're proposing.

I just think that's human nature. People were around for hundreds/thousands of years without IP law, and there was still war, theft, starvation, and power-hungry people eager to capitalize on the situation.

Exactly. You're not just talking about removing IP, you're talking about changing all of humanity! Good luck with that!

How? There was no IP law in that scenario.

I disagree completely. This kind of evil has been around since the beginning of humanity, it has nothing to do with IP law. IP law was introduced to help keep this kind of evil, which existed LONG before, in check.

And the vast majority of encounters would be perfectly fine, but all it takes is one...

I don't see how your "solution" fixes this? Those people will still be out there, harming others and trying to increase their own standing. There will always be the "haves" and the "have nots", and the "have nots" will work to get whatever it is that the "haves" have. Most people do it in socially acceptable forms, some people do not. Laws exist to keep these people in check.

You'll get no argument from me there, but the problem is we're not there yet. That mutual respect doesn't exist to the level that would be required to do away with IP law. If we were at that point then there wouldn't be any need for ANY laws, or police, or prisons, or security, or encryption, or locks/keys. Are you suggesting we dismantle the entire legal system and hope for the best???


You seem to think that laws are creating the problems, and if you just get rid of them everything would be fine. That line of thinking is backwards. Laws didn't come first, evil came first, and laws were created to stop the evil, including IP law.

In the beginning there were people. People decided that it would be to everyone's benefit if they formed societies. Everything was fine in the society, but then one person got jealous of what someone else had. Who knows, maybe Joe had his shack on a great spot on the side of the river, and John couldn't find a spot as good, so John killed Joe and took his shack. Everyone in the society got together and decided that they couldn't function as a society with this kind of behavior going on, so they made a law, "Don't kill people", formed a police department to enforce the law, and started collecting a small tax from all of the residents to pay for it. Then somebody else did something evil, and another law was created, and another, and another. After a few thousand years, you have modern day society, and now you're saying that the reason people are evil is BECAUSE of the laws? If that's true, then why were these laws ever created in the first place?