Patenting Genetics

[Avid]

Do you think it should be allowed to patent something genetic based (tree, cat, human, etc.)?

[TheLastMohican]

Of course. It takes work to decode a gene sequence or breed a hardier corn plant. If you were the one who developed the sequence first, you should be able to patent it, just like a household appliance.

[Mozzes]

Of course. It takes work to decode a gene sequence or breed a hardier corn plant. If you were the one who developed the sequence first, you should be able to patent it, just like a household appliance.

It's an interesting situation. For instance, allowing the patenting of genes and GMOs is a form of financial protection for the companies that produce those genes and GMOs. It allows for some form of judicial recourse in certain situations. But that got me thinking. It's not uncommon for organic farmers to have to worry about genetic contamination particularly for plants that utilize wind as a pollination-vector. The problem is genetic contamination from GMOs can be absolutely catastrophic to small organic farmers. Losing their organic certification as well as a large portion of their customers isn't inconceivable. But they have absolutely no recourse in such a situation. Often times all they can do is watch their work circle the drain.

Do these biotech giants owe anything to these small farmers when something like that happens? Is there any way to provide protection to organic farmers against genetic contamination?

Furthermore, in the event of genetic contamination do these farmers owe anything to the patent holders? Could it somehow be considered stealing? If these modified genes contaminate a wild species do they then own parts of those new organisms?

I don't think it's a cut-and-dry issue when you consider that they're attempting to patent something that inherently can not be controlled.

[Josh]

Ooooo great topic, absolutely not. It's another way for these slimy biotechnology and pharmaceutical companies to put money first, at the expense of people's health. Any company or university that wants to develop a treatment for a genetic disease affecting a certain gene has to pay the company holding the patent (sometimes an exorbitant and prohibitive amount of money.) It's completely anti competition and anti progress. How in gods name could this possibly be construed as a good thing? These people are scum and the courts who make these rulings are just as bad.

[Avid]

It's an interesting situation. For instance, allowing the patenting of genes and GMOs is a form of financial protection for the companies that produce those genes and GMOs. It allows for some form of judicial recourse in certain situations. But that got me thinking. It's not uncommon for organic farmers to have to worry about genetic contamination particularly for plants that utilize wind as a pollination-vector. The problem is genetic contamination from GMOs can be absolutely catastrophic to small organic farmers. Losing their organic certification as well as a large portion of their customers isn't inconceivable. But they have absolutely no recourse in such a situation. Often times all they can do is watch their work circle the drain.

Do these biotech giants owe anything to these small farmers when something like that happens? Is there any way to provide protection to organic farmers against genetic contamination?

Furthermore, in the event of genetic contamination do these farmers owe anything to the patent holders? Could it somehow be considered stealing? If these modified genes contaminate a wild species do they then own parts of those new organisms?

I don't think it's a cut-and-dry issue when you consider that they're attempting to patent something that inherently can not be controlled.
This was specifically what I was questioning.

[Zedicus]

Furthermore, in the event of genetic contamination do these farmers owe anything to the patent holders? Could it somehow be considered stealing? If these modified genes contaminate a wild species do they then own parts of those new organisms?

Monsanto has already tried this arguement. Percy Schmeiser (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.) was a farmer growing Canola and did not use their product, but because they found modified canola growing in the ditch they tried to sue him for $15.00 an arce plus all his crop and seed.

As far as I am concerned the person who decode a gene sequence should be entitled to pay for his/her work. However, if the product they create is released, and they can not control where it spreads thats their problem.

[superjo562]

monsanto....tsk tsk tsk.

maybe some more company funding into biotech & ethics seminars could help. =\

[blueback]

It's completely anti competition and anti progress. How in gods name could this possibly be construed as a good thing? These people are scum and the courts who make these rulings are just as bad.
Patents aren't anti-competition, they are pro-innovation. Have you never heard of an expired patent? There's no such thing as an indefinite patent. They all expire eventually.

Patents are a legal monopoly that gives the inventor of something truly new a chance to get rich; their reward for going to the trouble of inventing something. Once the patent is expired everyone and their brother is allowed to try to profit from it. It's not complicated.

Who, exactly, are scum? The inventors?

I think that patents are a good idea. Of course, like anything else they can be implemented badly. Genetic patents are more complicated because genes copy themselves. If someone invents a new mousetrap it can't reproduce itself and wander into some random person's closet. As you already pointed out genetically engineered plants can spread their patented genes automatically. However, this is not a complicated idea. People who patent things that can reproduce automatically (genes) simply have to accept the risk. They must have known all about this ability of genes since they were smart enough to invent a new one.

Genes are just biological machines. We would be foolish to avoid innovation in this area. All we have to do is force people to stop suing at the drop of a hat. That's a whole 'nother problem.

[thod]

Patents are a legal monopoly that gives the inventor of something truly new a chance to get rich; their reward for going to the trouble of inventing something. Once the patent is expired everyone and their brother is allowed to try to profit from it. It's not complicated.


And there in lies the problem. These are not inventions they are discoveries and therefore not patentable. If someone were to identify a gene in the body and then demand payment from all the humans that carry that gene, then they would all refuse him. If they can manipulate the genes in such a way as to create something new then it would be an invention. For example when they inserted arctic flounder genes into tomato's to give them frost resistance that is an invention. Yet anyone else should be able to use those genes since they did not invent arctic flounder genes, they discovered them. The prior art test should prevent the patent, you could say God invented them and they are now out of patent if you are theist minded.

[GuerrillaVoyage]

What an interesting complex question. This one actually is making me think. My first reaction is no but I'm going to have to think about this a little bit before I come up with an opinion and write up an essay.

[Zedicus]

And there in lies the problem. These are not inventions they are discoveries and therefore not patentable. If someone were to identify a gene in the body and then demand payment from all the humans that carry that gene, then they would all refuse him. If they can manipulate the genes in such a way as to create something new then it would be an invention. For example when they inserted arctic flounder genes into tomato's to give them frost resistance that is an invention. Yet anyone else should be able to use those genes since they did not invent arctic flounder genes, they discovered them. The prior art test should prevent the patent, you could say God invented them and they are now out of patent if you are theist minded.

I am not disagreeing with you, but when they put the human genome project on the internet it became public domain and is no longer patentable. However, cures for specific gene issues are still patentable because they fall under the ruling In general, raw products of nature are not patentable. DNA products usually become patentable when they have been isolated, purified, or modified to produce a unique form not found in nature.
Source (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.)

[blueback]

...when they inserted arctic flounder genes...
You don't think they just reach into an arctic founder with a pair of tweezers and drop the genes into a tomato, do you? The process and the form of gene they have to produce to make the transition is an invention, and therefore patentable.

[AJB]

I personally think that a company should be able to patent something genetic, but the patent should only be limited to that specific generation. If someone else legally purchases the patented genetically altered object and uses it to create another, no royalties should have to be rendered to the original creator.

If we consider a tomato seed for an example, the current patent holders on a genetically modified tomato seed had to have started with a tomato seed that, even though was not previously patented, was the result of genetic modification via tedious selection and cross breeding by generations of farmers.

[Avid]

What an interesting complex question. This one actually is making me think. My first reaction is no but I'm going to have to think about this a little bit before I come up with an opinion and write up an essay.
Yeah, usually I can come to a decent judgment call fairly easy but I'm having a hard time with it. The thing is I don't understand why they have to grow wheat in a place that won't grow wheat. I'm sure mother nature has a perfectly fine food plant that can be grown there and feed them if they tried it and they could sustain it without having to buy GMO seed every year since most seed they make doesn't carry on to another generation. I've actually become obssessed with food plants of all types since I'm creating a "self sufficient" plan for misfortunate people who wish to have their own food and so far there is no need for super wheat. Although if it is a region where it doesn't risk contaminating anything or they REALLY want to I don't see anything wrong with it being grown to feed people. Anyway, my issue is people being independent and food not becoming a monopolized. Not all food plants are the result of lab tinkering. The hass avacado was a prime example and all the guy did was plant a big seed.

[DrEast]

Eh. The process of patenting itself is just an attempt to shift the responsibility of security to somebody else. Get right down to it, the strong do what they can, the weak suffer what they must. Such is the worldly way.

The strength of patenting is rested on the validity and viability of human government. How much do YOU trust the system?

[blueback]

That didn't make any sense at all. Maybe your tin-foil hat is on too tight.

OF COURSE the patent shifts responsibility for security to someone else. If the government didn't guarantee the patent then the individual would have to do it. They would spend so much time tracking down people infringing on their patent and fighting with them they wouldn't have any time left over to actually produce the thing. If that was the case not only would innovation slow down but it would only be done by powerful, ruthless rober-baron types who could scare people into not infringing on the patent.

Do you think that would be a better place?

[Autoptic]

If I see something natural do something I can replicate it, but if it's a person, who I am otherwise legally observing, I can't. It makes no more sense to me than blackmail. My information is mine. I never agreed to partition off part of my brain as someone else's storage space. Property is physical stuff you can take away thus the problem. Ideas are not and shouldn't be "protected" from simple duplication. Patents and copyrights are just a racket going back to feudalism.

[blueback]

I never agreed to partition off part of my brain as someone else's storage space. Property is physical stuff you can take away thus the problem. Ideas are not and shouldn't be "protected" from simple duplication. Patents and copyrights are just a racket going back to feudalism.



Patents aren't anti-competition, they are pro-innovation. Have you never heard of an expired patent? There's no such thing as an indefinite patent. They all expire eventually.

Patents are a legal monopoly that gives the inventor of something truly new a chance to get rich; their reward for going to the trouble of inventing something. Once the patent is expired everyone and their brother is allowed to try to profit from it. It's not complicated.

[DrEast]

That didn't make any sense at all. Maybe your tin-foil hat is on too tight.

OF COURSE the patent shifts responsibility for security to someone else. If the government didn't guarantee the patent then the individual would have to do it. They would spend so much time tracking down people infringing on their patent and fighting with them they wouldn't have any time left over to actually produce the thing. If that was the case not only would innovation slow down but it would only be done by powerful, ruthless rober-baron types who could scare people into not infringing on the patent.

Do you think that would be a better place?

Certainly. Then people who think they have property rights over ideas would realize the folly of it. And even the ruthless wouldn't be able to get away with protecting their ideas in that scenario.

[blueback]

It takes work to invent something new.

That work can't profit the inventor until after the invention is ready to sell.

If, once they have put in all that work, someone else can wander buy, take their invention, and make money off of it, then they have stolen that person's work.

People won't put the time into inventing things unless they are compensated. The problem is that once all the problems have been ironed out of an idea anyone can use the idea. There has to be an artificial barrier to others appropriating the idea or people won't bother to invent anything. Inventions are good; we want people to invent new things. To encourage them to invent new things we guarantee that they are the only ones who can profit from them FOR A CERTAIN PERIOD OF TIME.

Once that period has expired everyone is free to use the idea.

This, actually, a really good system. . .not an evil one. It means that more people are in their garage trying to invent things to make them rich and fewer people are making a living ruthlessly enforcing property rights.

[Autoptic]

Sure, no one would open the source of their profits for others to tinker with. Companies certainly wouldn't pay someone to make stuff for them to charge for its production and related services if they would actually have competition effectively selling the same things, would they? Bah, an economy not made up of monopolies is nonsensical.

[blueback]

I'm not really sure, but I think that post was about how you still think patents are the evil tools of evil corporations.

You do realize that the world us more complicated than that, right?

[Autoptic]

Sure, the legal system and government is too for the same reason. It's purposely convoluted with unreal distinctions made up to serve those in the business of law. Simplify it, and you do indeed put most of them out of business as they weren't doing much else of value anyway. Look at the current music industry. The model doesn't realistically work, but they intend to make it work by coercion and fraud.

[blueback]

Again with the assumption that everyone's evil.

By way of a mental exercise, try assuming that people are incompetent before you assume they're malicious. You end up with much more useful explanations that way.

Why would you think that individuals, who are capable of making evil decisions, have enough power to control a system as large as the "legal" system, the "government" or the "music industry?" There's another explanation, and that's that they are all just doing the best they can.

[Autoptic]

I'm aware of Hanlon's Razor, but incompetence doesn't help the case. Best is a value judgment. Value is relative. This is exactly why I'm arguing for less restriction by anyone without regard for their intentions. Intention is not enough. The problem is a matter of freedom, not function. If you properly define the former, you can define the latter however the hell you want. To invoke Godwin's law while I'm at it, properly defining function makes Hitler the good guy. As far him being evil, are you sure he wasn't just mistaken? Have seen the technology the Nazis were coming out with? We're still working out some of it. That was certainly innovation.

[DrEast]

Again with the assumption that everyone's evil.


I'm a follower of Reformation theology. The total depravity of mankind, both individually AND systematically, is actually the first item of faith in the traditional Calvinistic mnemonic: TULIP. As such, yes, it is a central tenant of my worldview that everybody is evil. Thanks for noticing!

That said, the assumption that invention is limited to profitability is an unprovable assertion. Both large corporations and individual inventors will invent even without governmentally assured protection. Corporations that don't invest in R&D will quickly fall behind the curve. Corporations already realize the limits of governmental protection and, even today, rely on the traditional time-limited method of innovation protection as their first line of defense: Contractually obliged secrecy. It works, for a while, and that's the time where you rake in your profits. Once the secret's out, you had better have innovated further or you fall behind.

That's the soul of capitalism! Patenting is not required for the core mechanic, which is designed to drive up efficiency and availability of goods to the general market. The biggest use of patenting today seems to be as a scorecard for engineers or a frivolous lawsuit generator.

As for individual inventors, well, who can tell the mind of the individual? As an aggregate, I'll point out that people have been inventing things for a very long time. Remember that the burden of evidence rests in your assertion of a positive statement that patenting is beneficial, but since we're INTJ's, I'll try and provide a counterargument: the patent process places a legal and financial burden on R&D projects of individuals and corporations both. The benefits, however, rest only in R&D projects that show immediate profit. Does this not hinder any R&D project whose profitability may be longer term?

[blueback]

...incompetence doesn't help the case...Value is relative...Intention is not enough. The problem is a matter of freedom, not function...properly defining function makes Hitler the good guy...the technology the Nazis were coming out with...was certainly innovation.

If there was a coherent thought in there somewhere I missed it. I'd be happy to talk about something as soon as you have settled on something to talk about.

I'm a follower of Reformation theology. The total depravity of mankind, both individually AND systematically, is actually the first item of faith ...that everybody is evil.

Just so we're being clear, you are aware that if something is an "item of faith" that means you have absolutely no emperical or logical support for it, right? If that's the case I fail to see how you can form any solid conclusions based on your "first item." Anything you base on that assumption will be inherently tentative; awaiting support of the underlying presupposition(s).

That said, the assumption that invention is limited to profitability is an unprovable assertion.

I see the words, but I'm not sure what you're trying to say.

What I said was that people put all the work into inventing things because they expect some sort of payoff at the end. In a few cases that payoff might be simply the joy of creation, but in most it is an increase in personal wealth. In fact, that's pretty much why people do all their work. Either that or to hold off a decrease in personal wealth, which is really the same thing.

Are you trying to assert that people invent "just because" and that it doesn't matter how little protection their ideas have, they will still invent just as much?

Both large corporations and individual inventors will invent even without governmentally assured protection.

I was pretty clear when I said that people wouldn't stop inventing entirely. So, you know, congratulations on your reading comprehension.

What I said was that they would invent much less, and the ones doing the inventing would be doing it under some other form of protection. . .I think the term "robber baron" was used.

Inventions used to happen only under patronage. That's when a rich person would support an inventor so that they had enough time and money to invent things. That rich person would then profit from the invention because they had the means to protect it. They were generally not nice people.

Corporations already realize the limits of governmental protection and, even today, rely on the traditional time-limited method of innovation protection as their first line of defense: Contractually obliged secrecy.

So. . .corporations rely on one form of government protection because another "has limits." How does that support your idea that government protection doesn't work?

Patenting is not required for the core mechanic [of capitalism], which is designed to drive up efficiency and availability of goods to the general market. The biggest use of patenting today seems to be as a scorecard for engineers or a frivolous lawsuit generator.

Capitalism isn't "designed to drive up efficiency and availability of goods to the general market" it is simply a method of setting prices. Predictable prices means more investment, which does increase the availability fo goods, but that is a side effect that doesn't always happen.

As an aggregate, I'll point out that people have been inventing things for a very long time.

They have. . .oh my GOD! Why didn't anyone tell me before?

Remember that the burden of evidence rests in your assertion of a positive statement that patenting is beneficial,

As opposed to your positive assertion that patenting is evil. . .yes that makes total sense.

the patent process places a legal and financial burden on R&D projects of individuals and corporations both. The benefits, however, rest only in R&D projects that show immediate profit. Does this not hinder any R&D project whose profitability may be longer term?

Okay, you have made a couple unwarranted assumptions
1) that the burden of patenting something falls on the R&D projects. Not only does that not make sense as it stands, if I interpret it it still doesn't make much sense. If an individual patents something it places a burden on them, or on their investors, seperate from the process of creating the invention. If a corporation (I'm assuming this means large company) patents something it is just another item on their balance sheet which gets rolled up with all the other expenses.

2) that only immediately profitable R&D projects are beneficial. This is either a joke, a pathetic attempt to beef up your argument, or a betrayal that you really don't know what you're talking about. I'm not going to bother listing a sample of R&D projects that took a decade or more even when they provided no financial return. . .I'm confident that you already know about them.

So. . .the only thing left is your faith-based assumption that all people are evil. Which doesn't have anything to do with patents.

"Analyses of exhibition data for twelve countries in 1851 and ten countries in 1876 indicate that inventors in countries without patent laws focus on a small set of industries where patents were less important, while innovation in countries with patent laws appears to be much more diversified." American Economic Review, vol. 95 (4) , September 2005
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Are patents a pre-condition for innovation? – no
Can patents encourage innovation? – yes
Do economists agree on the economic effects? – no
Do economically successful countries have or develop strong patent systems? – yes International Symposium: The Contribution of the Patent System to the Innovation Process Ankara, February 13, 2008
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

[DrEast]

Just so we're being clear, you are aware that if something is an "item of faith" that means you have absolutely no emperical or logical support for it, right? If that's the case I fail to see how you can form any solid conclusions based on your "first item." Anything you base on that assumption will be inherently tentative; awaiting support of the underlying presupposition(s).


Certainly, which is why I don't base anything on that assumption in and of itself.


I see the words, but I'm not sure what you're trying to say.

What I said was that people put all the work into inventing things because they expect some sort of payoff at the end. In a few cases that payoff might be simply the joy of creation, but in most it is an increase in personal wealth. In fact, that's pretty much why people do all their work. Either that or to hold off a decrease in personal wealth, which is really the same thing.


The joy of creation, an increase of productivity, more free time, what have you. Of course, an invention has to be more than just invented before this benefit will be passed on to the general populace. Either it has to be simple enough that anyone can make one, or it has to be mass produced.


Are you trying to assert that people invent "just because" and that it doesn't matter how little protection their ideas have, they will still invent just as much?


Are you asserting that they won't?


Inventions used to happen only under patronage. That's when a rich person would support an inventor so that they had enough time and money to invent things. That rich person would then profit from the invention because they had the means to protect it. They were generally not nice people.


Interesting view of the world. What evidence do you have to support it? This is true of the arts, but I've never heard anyone attempt to apply it to inventions. And there's much to be said of a patronage system of artistic development... some of the internet-based mass patronage systems are starting to take off.


So. . .corporations rely on one form of government protection because another "has limits." How does that support your idea that government protection doesn't work?


Specifically, the basis for a contractual obligation is a voluntarily mutual initial contract. The key here is that the contract is entered into voluntarily on both sides... something patenting does not allow. Inventions are often simultaneously developed, and patenting prevents anyone who develops an idea on their own after the first from profiting thereby.


Capitalism isn't "designed to drive up efficiency and availability of goods to the general market" it is simply a method of setting prices. Predictable prices means more investment, which does increase the availability fo goods, but that is a side effect that doesn't always happen.


Sorry, I should have been more specific and went with the full term "free market capitalism."


As opposed to your positive assertion that patenting is evil. . .yes that makes total sense.


I wouldn't use the term evil here (for the sake of argument) so much as "not necessarily positive and efficient."


Okay, you have made a couple unwarranted assumptions
1) that the burden of patenting something falls on the R&D projects. Not only does that not make sense as it stands, if I interpret it it still doesn't make much sense. If an individual patents something it places a burden on them, or on their investors, seperate from the process of creating the invention. If a corporation (I'm assuming this means large company) patents something it is just another item on their balance sheet which gets rolled up with all the other expenses.


In that case, it still costs money. It's still a disincentive, however small.


2) that only immediately profitable R&D projects are beneficial. This is either a joke, a pathetic attempt to beef up your argument, or a betrayal that you really don't know what you're talking about. I'm not going to bother listing a sample of R&D projects that took a decade or more even when they provided no financial return. . .I'm confident that you already know about them.


I do, but I'd argue there would be many more of them without patenting.


"Analyses of exhibition data for twelve countries in 1851 and ten countries in 1876 indicate that inventors in countries without patent laws focus on a small set of industries where patents were less important, while innovation in countries with patent laws appears to be much more diversified." American Economic Review, vol. 95 (4) , September 2005
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Are patents a pre-condition for innovation? – no
Can patents encourage innovation? – yes
Do economists agree on the economic effects? – no
Do economically successful countries have or develop strong patent systems? – yes International Symposium: The Contribution of the Patent System to the Innovation Process Ankara, February 13, 2008
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Define an "economically successful" country. What level of boom-bust cycle does that country experience? Is it using fiat currency (a good question in the mid-nineteenth century)? There are a host of variables besides patenting that may well be related that need to be examined before you can stake a useful claim on that statistical data.

Further, is it the responsibility of government to ensure economic success? I'd argue very strongly "no." After all, them robber barons tend to not be nice people. So economic success is not necessarily a reason to implement patenting in any event.

(Incidentally, I would hasten to say that I am not myself a die-hard opponent of the system of patenting currently in effect. I just like playing devil's advocate. No surprise, I'm sure.)

[Skatt]

Just because I wanted to try a new perspective on this, I rather poorly tapped into my F. What about the rights of non-GMOs? Do they suddenly lose the rights to part of their unique being just because someone was able to write it down? It sounds a bit silly when you think about crops, which has maintained dominance in the thread so far. Considering other things that were brought up in the initial question, it does seem very invading to allow as solid a claim as a patent on things of this nature. I would like to propose that a EULA or other form of intellectual property right be printed on any item in question instead. ;)
Joking on that, but presume a company doesn't make the GMO code publicly available and just produces, markets, and sells the GMO in various forms... Wouldn't anyone else who maps that code have put just as much effort into it? I think it's different when a result can only be achieved one way. There is no way to create anything similar, only the same. It's not like we can have DirectX and OpenGL here. The results can't really vary and any improvement on the original GMO would likely include the original which could potentially create issues with deteriorating the desire to research because of loss of hard work that was done independently.
I don't think that was a very clear point, hopefully you all got what I was trying to get at.

[blueback]

Certainly, which is why I don't base anything on that assumption in and of itself.

So you mentioned it because. . .it was amusing?

Are you asserting that they won't?

Yeah. . .I'm pretty sure I've stated that clearly. . .several times. It's nice to see that you're reading.

Interesting view of the world. What evidence do you have to support it?

I'm basing that opinion on my memory of history. The impression I got was that most pre-industiral inventions happened within some kind of feudal-esque system. Inventors were either independantly wealthy, or were taken in by a noble or a city-state to make their inventions happen. I could research it, but I'm confident enough in that impression that I don't feel like it.

Specifically, the basis for a contractual obligation is a voluntarily mutual initial contract. The key here is that the contract is entered into voluntarily on both sides... something patenting does not allow.

Sure it does. A patent is a contract between an individual and the government. The government promises people that if they invent something new they will have the sole right to profit from it for a certain period of time. That sounds voluntary to me. No one has to patent anything.

Inventions are often simultaneously developed, and patenting prevents anyone who develops an idea on their own after the first from profiting thereby.

Often, huh? That's an interesting view of the world. What evidence do you have to support it?

You've got a problem with people inventing quickly? I think an incentive to finish an idea first is a good thing.

I wouldn't use the term evil here (for the sake of argument) so much as "not necessarily positive and efficient."

"not necessarily" is a question, not a statement. All you've done is taken what I said and added a qualifier.

In that case, it still costs money. It's still a disincentive, however small.

I do, but I'd argue there would be many more of them without patenting.

Right. Your point still stands as long as you qualify it out of existence.

You think there would be more inventions without patenting? Do you have any emperical or logical support for that idea?

Define an "economically successful" country. What level of boom-bust cycle does that country experience? Is it using fiat currency (a good question in the mid-nineteenth century)? There are a host of variables besides patenting that may well be related that need to be examined before you can stake a useful claim on that statistical data.

Try reading the study. I don't feel like spoon feeding you. Pointing out that it's 'possible' that a study is flawed is not the same as actually rebutting it.

Further, is it the responsibility of government to ensure economic success? I'd argue very strongly "no." After all, them robber barons tend to not be nice people. So economic success is not necessarily a reason to implement patenting in any event.

Uh. . .yes, it is the responsibility of the government to ensure economic success, at least on a nation-wide scale. That is one of the prime functions of government, to ensure that it establishes an environment in which the economy can grow, or, "succeed."

Patents remove the power of the robber barons. So patenting not only speeds up innovation but removes a support from underneath bad people.

[Autoptic]

Sure it does. A patent is a contract between an individual and the government. The government promises people that if they invent something new they will have the sole right to profit from it for a certain period of time. That sounds voluntary to me. No one has to patent anything.

You have a warp notion of contracts. They only affect those whose signed them; otherwise, it is literally a racket. I didn't agree to it, yet I'm the one who lost something, and if I do something that violates this contract I wasn't a part of I'll pay to the government I'm paying for no less.

Uh. . .yes, it is the responsibility of the government to ensure economic success, at least on a nation-wide scale. That is one of the prime functions of government, to ensure that it establishes an environment in which the economy can grow, or, "succeed."

This was part of the point I was making earlier. Who are they to define success? Who are they to screw over the successful and spread someone else's wealth around? Forcing the system to work only demonstrates that it doesn't and turns it into a farce.

Patents remove the power of the robber barons. So patenting not only speeds up innovation but removes a support from underneath bad people.

Evil corporations you wave off as nonsense, but you keep pulling robber barons out of your ass.

[blueback]

You have a warp notion of contracts. They only affect those whose signed them;

Not necessarily. A doctor and patient have a contract that binds the doctor from discussing private information. That could easily affect someone else who needed, or felt they needed, that information. The same thing can be said for lawyers. A repo man has a contract to basically steal property back from someone. A bounty hunter has a contract to take a private citizen into custody. Microsoft had contracts with computer manufacturers that forbid them from using anyone else's software.

Where did you get the idea that contracts only affect the people who signed them?

I didn't agree to it, yet I'm the one who lost something, and if I do something that violates this contract I wasn't a part of I'll pay to the government I'm paying for no less.

Yeah. Sucks. I get that you don't like government, being an anarcho-capitalist and all. However, you are going to have to get use to living with the effects of decisions you never got a say in. That's just life.

This was part of the point I was making earlier. Who are they to define success? Who are they to screw over the successful and spread someone else's wealth around? Forcing the system to work only demonstrates that it doesn't and turns it into a farce.

People don't automatically establish stable systems of interaction. They can, however, have relatively stable systems forced on them.

The "successful" people who's wealth is being "spread around" are only successful because of the system that is spreading their wealth around. Without the security and predictability imposed by the state they would have to enforce their own property rights. It doesn't take long for the masses to strip a mansion.

There is a difference between a system that is not perfect, whatever that means, and a farce. The simple existance of a system has a positive effect. I gives people something to invest in; it is moderately self-perpetuating. It is the absence of a system at all that should be avoided.

Evil corporations you wave off as nonsense, but you keep pulling robber barons out of your ass.

Hey, they were real. Google them.

"Evil corporations" on the other hand, are a subjective idea. You call them evil, but they produced the computer you are using to bash them. You must work somewhere; which means you depend on corporations for your job.

[Autoptic]

Not necessarily. A doctor and patient have a contract that binds the doctor from discussing private information. That could easily affect someone else who needed, or felt they needed, that information. The same thing can be said for lawyers. A repo man has a contract to basically steal property back from someone. A bounty hunter has a contract to take a private citizen into custody. Microsoft had contracts with computer manufacturers that forbid them from using anyone else's software.

At no point do any of those you mentioned get power over anyone else.

Yeah. Sucks. I get that you don't like government, being an anarcho-capitalist and all. However, you are going to have to get use to living with the effects of decisions you never got a say in. That's just life.

I could say exactly the same about most everything you mentioned especially the lack of patents.

People don't automatically establish stable systems of interaction.

Prove it. This is an assumption.

The "successful" people who's wealth is being "spread around" are only successful because of the system that is spreading their wealth around. Without the security and predictability imposed by the state they would have to enforce their own property rights. It doesn't take long for the masses to strip a mansion.

Why are you afraid of robber barons then?

There is a difference between a system that is not perfect, whatever that means, and a farce. The simple existance of a system has a positive effect. I gives people something to invest in; it is moderately self-perpetuating. It is the absence of a system at all that should be avoided.

Again it was a point that I was making about fascism. Systems don't justify themselves especially incompetent ones. I was pointing out that the Nazis actually were competent but was that enough to justify them?

"Evil corporations" on the other hand, are a subjective idea. You call them evil, but they produced the computer you are using to bash them. You must work somewhere; which means you depend on corporations for your job.

It's not about corporations being evil. It's about granting them special rights by taking them from individuals. Besides, I could say the same for those robber barons.

[blueback]

So your point would be. . .?

[Autoptic]

Among the others, you seem to arguing from the status quo simply rejecting anything else.

[blueback]

Yeah. I got the impression we were starting to lost the discussion.

I'm all for new ideas, I just don't like the approach you seem to be taking. It sounds like you don't actually know how or why anything works the way it currently does. It seems to me that if we can understand how the current system ended up the way it is we will be in a much better position to prescribe how it should be.

Starting from scratch with your axioms is fine, but if you have bad axioms you won't get anywhere. That is why I think we should be able to explain what is. What is obviously works or it wouldn't be. What has been worked for a while. So we should be able to analyze the status quo to inform our attempts to improve it. When you say things that make it sound like you don't have a clue how systems work it makes me question your assumption that you actually have a better idea.

[Autoptic]

A lot of the things done are done simply because that is the way it is done. You actually admitted patents weren't necessary. Think wearing a suit to be "professional". It serves no point other than it's own expectation and probably isn't necessary for anyone's profession. Remove it, and it's just gone. They came about through holdovers from feudalism. Removing the assumptions that spawned them has already been done. I admit I'm not certain of the specifics, but as DrEast was also stating they need to be justified on some basis other than they exist now. I think we disagree on what we consider the point of civilization much less what constitutes an improvement.

[blueback]

No, a lot of things are done because the cost of changing them is greater than the cost of leaving them the way they are. They might not be perfect, in fact they probably aren't, but they work well enough to be less expensive than change.

Oooooo. . .I guess I did. Congratulations on spotting something I explicitly stated. However, you still managed to misinterpret it. I said that patents are logical and that there is emperical correlation. I never claimed they were the one and only solution to all our problems, I just said they work.

So, being "professional" serves no purpose? You really have a lot to learn. I will try to help. The. . .well, one of the reasons, looking professional is important is that it proves you are capable of attention to detail. If you can dress yourself according to a set or rules you just might be able to do something important too. If you can't dress yourself, or if you could but never make the effort, you leave people with no knowledge about you whatsoever. If someone is going to trust you with something, like time or money, they want some sort of vague assurance that you won't waste their time or money. Being able to put on a tie correctly is one of those vague assurances. It's just like boot camp. We had to fold t-shirts into perfect little squares. We had to do that BECAUSE it doesn't matter. We had to prove that we were capable of that before they'd bother to let us prove we were capable of anything more complex.

Yeah. We disagree. However, I am capable of explaining the rational behind many of the things that exist now. Since you aren't, it is unlikely your ideas have any merit. If you can't figure out what already works why should anyone think you can figure out what hasn't worked yet?

[Autoptic]

Boot camp assumes you are an idiot and will remains such albeit now a well train little doggy. Why get a degree or any of the many other tests that actually have any application at all? Your definition of work is literally insane. On a good day, most genuinely insane people could put on a tie and perform many other meaningless tricks. Most idiots can everyday but not do any skilled job. It proves nothing.

[blueback]

Your definition of work is literally insane. On a good day, most genuinely insane people could put on a tie and perform many other meaningless tricks.

"Literally", huh? I don't remember saying anything about work, let alone anything "literally" insane.

Most idiots can everyday but not do any skilled job. It proves nothing.

You really have a lot to learn. I will try to help...If you can dress yourself according to a set of rules you just might be able to do something important too...Being able to put on a tie correctly is one of those vague assurances.


Lets see. . .I said that putting on a tie wasn't inherently important, but that it did indicate you might be able to do something important. . .this point stands. Your pathetic attempt to strawman it, and when I say pathetic I mean juvenile, just shows that you really do have no idea what you're talking about.

I'm serious. This is an important idea to understand if you ever hope to have more than a mediocre chance at accomplishing anything. You will need other people, and those people will need to trust you. Sure, you can dress like a bum and get things done, but you are making it much harder and even then limiting your possibilities.

[Autoptic]

As I stated it couldn't possible serve as an true indicator of anything useful. Someone who can dress like a bum can tie his shoes laces and can easily learn to tie a tie. Anyone who doesn't get that has worse issues than I. Besides, if the job isn't tying ties it is irrelevant. This is where the insanity shows up. Does anyone check for a driver's license everyday if your job will never require it? Most jobs will indirectly require one, but they never check that.

[blueback]

As I stated it couldn't possible serve as an true indicator of anything useful.
Okay. See how far that gets you with other people.

[Autoptic]

I didn't say they wouldn't care I just said they were stupid and delusion. Some probably would qualify as insane if the condition weren't epidemic.

[blueback]

Whatever. I'm right, and you're clinging to the idea that the world should work the way you expect it to.

Things are the way they are for the reason(s) they are. It doesn't do anyone any good to claim that they shouldn't be the way they are if you can't explain why.

[Avid]

OK, I guess you guys got done with that (what a long read that was)...The question is how should the rules be setup. This spans all areas and covers everything with DNA. What about robots or cyborgs? They are already slapping rat neurons to little motorized vehicles. Won't robots and humans eventually gray out with the tech advancements...what about then. I'm wondering how things will advance on their current course.

[blueback]

I think things will become more permissable rather than less.

Information will be so easy to pass around that there will be little point in privacy measures. The only way anyone will respect privacy is if they want to; it will have to be cultural. The cops already have handheld X-ray scanners that pick up reflected X-rays instead of penetrated X-rays. What that means is they can just point the thing at what they're interested in and see inside of it in real time. Give it 10 years and anyone will be able to buy them. The only way information won't be spread around is if people actively respect privacy. It it's not cultural, it won't happen.

Individuals will magnify their effect. I just read about a guy who is producing DNA "building blocks" that will allow gene engineers to pick from a standardized set of parts. Give it 20 years and people will be able to create new organisms in their garage. Technology will magnify both our successes and our failures.

All this means that either we will try to control this chaos, and fail; or we will encourage people to build systems that are resilient and degrade gracefully. That way no matter how bad a failure we experience the rest of the system will isolate it and keep on chugging. Things like distributed power generation and storage is a good example. If we had millions of homes with solar cells and plugged in electric vehicles the power grid wouldn't be able to collapse.

I think the rules should be set up to encourage this sort of distribution. Instead of centralizing things we should do the opposite. We still need an overarching set of ground rules, but they should encourage innovation rather than discourage it. We won't be able to prevent damage by discouraging innovation. We have to encourage so much innoavation that the successes make up for the failures.

For example, a team at the Air Force Academy discovered something called ionic fluids. These, and I'm not into squishy subjects, are biological fluids that apparently don't evaporate. They can do all sorts of interesting things. The application they are pursuing is to spray this stuff into a cloud of bad gases (like Sarin) because it bonds with it and "tears it up" as they put it. They are testing a "fire bottle" like design that would be sprayed directly into a contaminated area and sterilize it. Another fluid they discovered has a plastic like consistency at one temperature but is a liquid at another. They want to spray it onto giant telescope mirrors during the day (warm) and at night (cool) peel it off like saran wrap with all the contaminants stuck in it.

These are the sorts of things that are going to protect us from the inevitable mistakes. We have to encourage new inventions because we can't successfully discourage the bad ones.

When it comes to things like genetics, the same thing applies. I don't know much about it, but I think that we need to incentivise activities that produce useful innovations. If we don't, we are just begging for something bad to happen and for us to not know how to stop it.