The copyright- patent problem

Post Reply New Topic

Patents were originally conceived to give originators of new concepts an economic advantage for a very limited time to permit economic monopoly advantages so that worthwhile novelty would be encouraged. This worked well for a reasonable time until powerful forces grasped the possibility of bilking the public with this arrangement and deprived society of the possibilities of relatively low cost advantages for all to benefit. That kids who download a few songs get into legal trouble to the tune of hundreds of thousands of dollars to satisfy rapacious firms that themselves screw the originators of the material is worse than immoral. But the problem of rewarding innovation remains. There is an interesting viewpoint at http://www.counterpunch.org/baker04072010.html as to some concept of a solution.

Another interesting factor to consider is that the bulk of research is funded by public money. Certainly inventions resulting from those discoveries should likewise belong to the public at large?

The applications of basic physics are generally privately done and any original design work in that context is patentable. Specific products are, for the most part, privately created.

ruveyn

I think the real issue is that patents and copyrights protect the originator from someone else copying their work and passing it off as their own...often for profit.

So, how does it hurt you if I copy your book and give it to my friends? If it's currently on sale at the store, I'm costing you income/royalties from the book being bought. What if it's out of print? I'm doing no harm unless I omit your name from the credits.

I think that's all that should matter. Patents are already evaded by companies taking a patented product and handing it to a "virgin" (term for someone who has had no contact whatsoever with the development of said product) and having them reverse-engineer it for them to produce a copy of it. That, to me, is no different that just copying it, but from a legal position, it is a sufficient investment into "independent development" to no run afoul of the patent process.

The point of the discussion on patent and copyrights is not about rewarding the originators so much as benefiting the public. Obviously there has to be some motivation for the creators to create in a society that refines all rewards down to money. The question raised is whether the current system needs radical revision so that all creative output has maximum public benefit and yet the creators have strong motivations to create. It is in no way a simple problem with obvious solutions.

The surest way to benefit the public is to keep the inventors inventing.

ruveyn

I think that the OP has a very naive view of the origin of patent law. While the precursors to patents in Italy were shorter, the reality of the standard twenty year patent can be traced back no later than the mid-15th century, and by the early 17th century, England and Wales had codified patent monopolies.

The reality of contemporary research and development activities is that these have to be funded; they are capital expenses, and enterprises that risk them have to have an expectation of reward, as well as recouping the capital losses from unproductive R&D. If the reward can only be gained over a very short period of time, then the law of diminishing returns dictates that recovery will be impossible, because the cost to the consumer will be so high as to drive out many potential buyers (especially when they know that the technology will be available from multiple sources in a shorter time).

The other point about patents is that you have to tell the world how you make your product. The price of your exclusivity is the loss of secrecy. This means that at the expiry of the patent, everybody can start cheaply producing your invention.

Patent law must be distinguished from copyright, which is a much newer legal concept, going back no earlier (for non State copyright holders) than the beginning of the 18th century. Copyrights typically endure much longer than patents, primarily because the marginal return on the artist's investment of time and effort is smaller.

The protection of copyright has been assaulted time and again by new technology for the reproduction and dissemination of works. Movable type, phonography, photography, radio-telecommunication, portable recording media, digital recording and, of course, the internet have all presented challenges to artists.

Legitimate purchasers of works, and purchasers of recordable media wind up bearing the economic burden of compensating artists for the loss of revenue derived from unsanctioned copying. I think that there is room for examination of a new model of copyright compensation that distributes the cost more broadly (thus reducing the burden on legitimate consumers), and encourages artists to make use of distribution channels to gain broader exposure for their works. Instead of fighting the internet, artists should be embracing it--providing that a way can be found to fairly transfer value from the reader/viewer/listener into the hands of the creator.

Well, then, what you really have is a "chicken or the egg" debate.

We live in an economic reality that a man must eat, and to eat a man must work and earn substance with which he can buy food.

So, if I create something new that benefits you and you can disseminate/copy/reproduce/etc. without PAYING me for my creative work and initiative, what incentive do I get to create anything else?

I paid $80 for a switching box that would allow me to have always on or switched power on a motorcycle. Yeah, I could have made one myself, but by the time I bought the materials and tools to TRY and make my own version of it, I'd spend as much (likely more) than what this guy was charging for his unit. By buying one from him, I rewarded him for his ingenuity, work, diligence, etc. for something that benefited me.

Now, if it was legal for Mr. Jackass to get one of his boxes, blatantly copy the design and crunch out his own copies, maybe after a while we could say Mr. Inventor was already compensated for his "creative effort" but where do you draw such a line? The box itself probably is only $20 in parts. The extra $60 is for not having to do the work of building it myself. Mr. Jackass could turn around and crank out copies for $40.

A man I work with taught me something he call the "administrative cost" of doing business. I could hunt online for 2 hours to save $20 on something I want to buy, and MAYBE that would be worth it. However, what if I could have earned $20 working for someone for those two hours but spent it trying to save $20? In that case, I just saved $0 because any savings was consumed in income I failed to earn doing something productive.

Sometimes buying from Mr. Inventor means more $$$ goes out, but when you look at what you save in time and hassle PLUS you get something Mr. Inventor must warranty is good for what you bought it for (no warranty for what you build yourself), it's a fair price to pay.

If we do not reward those who create or invent for their efforts, we remove the incentive for them to do so. Would you expect a dentist to do work on your teeth for next to nothing and expect quality work? How much does it cost to become a dentist...to open an office and offer services? Simple math. A worker is worth his wages.

Certainly "how long" a creator/inventor should have exclusive rights might be worth debating, but keep in mind that there are many variables.

1. How long will the item be "in demand?"

2. If the item was made public domain, how much "profit" would the public realize for which the inventor gets nothing but recognition? It is fair for you to gain the benefit of someone's creative effort but the creator gets nothing for a continuing benefit you're getting here and now?

3. if something is now public domain, should anyone who is allowed to copy it make ANY profit off of marketing a copy when the inventor/creator no longer gets anything? Is it fair for you to take someone else's hard work and make a profit selling it as your own when they get nothing?

You get the point.

Perhaps it might be worthwhile to think about rewarding the originator aside from the market. This brings all sorts of problems but it might be worth exploring.

The current situation in the pharmaceutical industry is worth considering. There are many drugs on the market for various illnesses and new ones appear all the time. Many of the new ones have been tested and appear to be no more effective than the old ones but the new ones are under patent and can be charged for at exorbitant prices. The patent has run out on the old ones and can become generic. But advertising and marketing (which is a very large expense for drug companies) weighs the sale in favor of the newer drugs which have no particular advantage over the old ones. the market does not respond to these facts as the public is not equipped to understand the situation. So medical costs skyrocket because of the protections of the patent system.
This is a major problem.

Well, my opinion about patents and copyrights mostly has to do with the american interpretation of it.

One needs only look over at what Monsanto has been doing in the past few years to notice the abuse.

Another is putting a patent (or copyright? From what i've read in this thread there's a difference which i'm not totally aware of) on the human genome... <.< How do you put a patent (again, or copyright*) on something that exists? I thought they were meant to protect inventions, not "finding" something that's been there since a few thousand years. <.<

Copyright exists automatically on any original work to the benefit of the person or entity that produced it. You don't have to register the work, or go through any formalities. You do for a patent, which is different in other ways to copyright. Copyright can be assigned to someone else, though. As for the human genome, off the top of my head I'd reckon if you think of the data describing it as a map, that might be a useful analogy. If you produce a map of your local district, you'd have the copyright for that map. Somebody else is free to produce their own map, but if they used yours without permission you'd have a civil case for damages (in English law).

Any scientific research and worthwhile and verifiable theory provides some sort of "map". Did Einstein patent E=MC^2?

No that's not true. Sequencing the human genome is analagous to mapping as you are recording features and positions. Mapping is subject to copyright, so a description of the human genome should be.

Any scientific research and worthwhile and verifiable theory provides some sort of "map". Did Einstein patent E=MC^2?[/quote]

Theorems and scientific hypotheses are neither patentable nor copyrightable. Books in which they are expressed can be copyrighted, but not the scientific or mathematical contents per se.

If X proves a theorem and I come up with another proof, I do not owe X any royalties. If Y has a scientific hypothesis and I use his hypothesis to come to a conclusion I do not owe Y any royalties.

The absence of royalties and patents for mathematical and scientific theory has not slowed down the production of either.

ruveyn

Theorems and scientific hypotheses are neither patentable nor copyrightable. Books in which they are expressed can be copyrighted, but not the scientific or mathematical contents per se.

If X proves a theorem and I come up with another proof, I do not owe X any royalties. If Y has a scientific hypothesis and I use his hypothesis to come to a conclusion I do not owe Y any royalties.

The absence of royalties and patents for mathematical and scientific theory has not slowed down the production of either.

ruveyn[/quote]

I agree with your point absolutely but that was not my quote.