The law vs the greater good

[Matt1970]

Teachers go through 5-6 years minimum, then tons of additional education and ongoing classes to start at 30k/yr when they can even find a 1.0 (which isn't often).

People don't go into calling professions for money. This has been proved beyond doubt in numerous studies. Callings aren't jobs, they're callings. That's sort of why they're called that.

No, most teachers have Bachlors Degree. They may start at 30K but in no time are up to 45K average and were talking about Doctors who have a minimum 8 year plus 5 year Residency. The Neurosurgeon who did the surgery on my girlfriends mom had a standard 8 year PHD, 3 more years of specialty in Neurosurgery and a 5 year residency. You think he would work for 50K a year?

 

[the DRIZZLE]

Being able to make your own wine has not destroyed the wine industry.

Backyard chickens have not destroyed the egg or chicken industry.

The people that buy the generic drugs probably can not afford the expensive version, so nothing has been lost.

You only lose money when you lose a customer. The peasants were never customers to start with. How are you going to lose money from someone that never bought your product to start with?

Those industries have nothing to do with pharmaceuticals which require a huge R&D investment that can only recouped through exclusive rights to sell the product. It would be like me building a winery next to your vineyard and stealing the grapes to make wine.

As I said earlier, the pharma companies do charge different prices in different markets to account for willingness to pay so they are loosing sales.

 

[CycloWizard]

No, you can't safely say that, since most everything that exists was invented before patents. Clothing, tools, buildings, science, thought, art, etc.

REFINEMENTS have happened since patents, and some few major accomplishments, but again many/most have been hobbyists or unfunded projects.

You're an idiot. Fuck off.

You're right - as long as you change what constitutes an invention, you can say whatever crap you want and define the words so that your crap is true. Unfortunately, that's not how language works. Words have meaning beyond that which you wish them to have for this particular thread. Therefore, you're wrong and the statements in the quoted post simply prove that you understand dick about technology and science. As an engineer/scientist who has invented at least a couple of things that make your life better each day, let me be the first to ask: why should I work for free? Do you?

 

[CycloWizard]

Why cant nations produce the drug for their own internal use?

This goes back to the greater good issue.

Company A spends a lot of time and money making the drug, so the cost is out of reach of a poor peasant in india.

Why should that person have to suffer when there is a solution?

For reasons I very clearly stated previously which you promptly ignored. Let me spell it out more systematically:
1. Companies exist to make a profit.
2. Pharmaceutical companies develop drugs that help people.
3. Pharmaceutical companies are companies and therefore exist to make a profit.
4. Pharmaceutical companies develop drugs to make a profit.
5. Pharmaceutical companies develop drugs that help people to make a profit.

So you see, if you remove profit, such companies won't exist because of #1. The more profit they make, the more drugs they can develop and the more people they can help. Stealing intellectual property to satisfy someone's need is the same as saying that intellectual property rights don't exist. If they don't exist, then these companies won't exist except if they can somehow keep the formulation of the drug proprietary (which is technically infeasible).

 

[PrinceofWands]

No, most teachers have Bachlors Degree. They may start at 30K but in no time are up to 45K average and were talking about Doctors who have a minimum 8 year plus 5 year Residency. The Neurosurgeon who did the surgery on my girlfriends mom had a standard 8 year PHD, 3 more years of specialty in Neurosurgery and a 5 year residency. You think he would work for 50K a year?

Many states are now up to requiring a Masters, at least within a few years. In addition, the Highly Qualified requirements under the NCLB added a requirement for a full degree in every subject you teach. The requirements are quickly ramping up to be a 5-6yr minimum.

I realize that isn't the same as as a Doctor, but it's fairly close. It's also close in that it deals with entrusting our children, and in some aspects their lives to a licensed professional. Again, not the same, no...but close enough to make the point.

I know MANY doctors and medical professionals that work for that or far less. They travel all over the world VOLUNTEERING their skills, never mind working for reasonable wages here.

 

[PrinceofWands]

You're right - as long as you change what constitutes an invention, you can say whatever crap you want and define the words so that your crap is true. Unfortunately, that's not how language works. Words have meaning beyond that which you wish them to have for this particular thread. Therefore, you're wrong and the statements in the quoted post simply prove that you understand dick about technology and science. As an engineer/scientist who has invented at least a couple of things that make your life better each day, let me be the first to ask: why should I work for free? Do you?

Ummmm

in·ven·tion/inˈvenSHən/

Noun:

• The action of inventing something, typically a process or device.

So, you're wrong
you're a fucking idiot
you're worthless
you're an asshole
and you can go fuck yourself.

And yes, I have OFTEN worked for free. Because I'm a good person. Unlike you.

 

[Texashiker]

For reasons I very clearly stated previously which you promptly ignored. Let me spell it out more systematically:
1. Companies exist to make a profit.
2. Pharmaceutical companies develop drugs that help people.
3. Pharmaceutical companies are companies and therefore exist to make a profit.
4. Pharmaceutical companies develop drugs to make a profit.
5. Pharmaceutical companies develop drugs that help people to make a profit.

We are not talking about removing the profit, just reducing it a little bit.

 

[JKing106]

Yea, because last time I checked landlords will take a good feeling instead of rent.

Where does making $100k + a year not pay the rent? That's right, in places where you need to impress the neighbors.

 

[CycloWizard]

Ummmm

in·ven·tion/inˈvenSHən/

Noun:

• The action of inventing something, typically a process or device.

So, you're wrong
you're a fucking idiot
you're worthless
you're an asshole
and you can go fuck yourself.

And yes, I have OFTEN worked for free. Because I'm a good person. Unlike you.

Really, fewer processes and devices have been invented since the advent of patents? Can you produce even one nutjob internet site that supports your claim?

As far as you being a good person, I don't think so. I think you're an idiot. Your assertion is equivalent to stating that a person should be paid for what he does UNLESS what he does has real value: if someone needs what he does, then he should do it for free. That's called slavery.

 

[CycloWizard]

We are not talking about removing the profit, just reducing it a little bit.

So you want to decrease the incentive that these companies have to produce their drugs? By how much? Any marginal change in the price will still leave someone unable to buy their product until it's free and decrement their driving force for innovation. It costs about $1 billion to bring a drug to market in the US. Many more fail along the way. If you were running a pharmaceutical company planning to try to develop a new drug to target disease X affects Y people, how much would you invest in the development if you knew the government was going to take your drug and give it away?

 

[diesbudt]

So you want to decrease the incentive that these companies have to produce their drugs? By how much? Any marginal change in the price will still leave someone unable to buy their product until it's free and decrement their driving force for innovation. It costs about $1 billion to bring a drug to market in the US. Many more fail along the way. If you were running a pharmaceutical company planning to try to develop a new drug to target disease X affects Y people, how much would you invest in the development if you knew the government was going to take your drug and give it away?

Raw materials for a single batch process to create a Diabetes drug I once worked on cost over $2million. So any failed batches = loss of that money.

Add in saleries, parttime workforce, energy/process $, repairing and equipment repayment, any patents and FDA payments that must be made. The drugs cost a lot to make. So you really can't blame just the Pharmaceutical companies. Look at the raw materials.

 

[Texashiker]

So you want to decrease the incentive that these companies have to produce their drugs? By how much?

How much the greater good of a community worth?

 

[CycloWizard]

How much the greater good of a community worth?

$0. "The greater good" is not a term in the accounting equation a company must solve when preparing its annual report. It has zero value. The greater good is served when the company makes a profit and plows that back in to developing new drugs.

 

[PrinceofWands]

Really, fewer processes and devices have been invented since the advent of patents? Can you produce even one nutjob internet site that supports your claim?

As far as you being a good person, I don't think so. I think you're an idiot. Your assertion is equivalent to stating that a person should be paid for what he does UNLESS what he does has real value: if someone needs what he does, then he should do it for free. That's called slavery.

Can you produce peer reviewed evidence that supports yours? I can produce the world, and everything in it up to the point of the patent system. So, clothes, medicine, thought, religion, the wheel, architecture, military, food, art, belongings...and every single item that falls into those categories.

If we agree that the modern patent system was established around 1450 you have roughly 500years, but can't count anything that's a refinement as opposed to an invention (so nothing that existed before that year). I have the ~11,500 years before that, and absolutely everything that existed up until 1450 that wasn't just a refinement. Then if we want to get technical I also get anything invented/developed without patents or being a part of the patent process (like the polio cure).

In other words, you have very little, I have almost everything.

Please show me where I said they SHOULD do it for FREE? You can't, because I didn't. You're just a 45IQ piece of shit idiot trying desperately not be proved worthless, and you're failing utterly at it. I said many/most are WILLING to do it for free, and that it shouldn't be done FOR PROFIT...that doesn't mean people don't get paid, as basic labor is a part of cost.

Again, fuck you, you total retard.

 

[CycloWizard]

Can you produce peer reviewed evidence that supports yours? I can produce the world, and everything in it up to the point of the patent system. So, clothes, medicine, thought, religion, the wheel, architecture, military, food, art, belongings...and every single item that falls into those categories.

If we agree that the modern patent system was established around 1450 you have roughly 500years, but can't count anything that's a refinement as opposed to an invention (so nothing that existed before that year). I have the ~11,500 years before that, and absolutely everything that existed up until 1450 that wasn't just a refinement. Then if we want to get technical I also get anything invented/developed without patents or being a part of the patent process (like the polio cure).

In other words, you have very little, I have almost everything.

Please show me where I said they SHOULD do it for FREE? You can't, because I didn't. You're just a 45IQ piece of shit idiot trying desperately not be proved worthless, and you're failing utterly at it. I said many/most are WILLING to do it for free, and that it shouldn't be done FOR PROFIT...that doesn't mean people don't get paid, as basic labor is a part of cost.

Again, fuck you, you total retard.

Definition of INVENTION
1: discovery, finding
2: productive imagination : inventiveness
3a : something invented: as (1) : a product of the imagination; especially : a false conception (2) : a device, contrivance, or process originated after study and experiment
b : a short keyboard composition featuring two- or three-part counterpoint
4: the act or process of inventing

If you even know how to read and bothered to open a book rather than insulting your betters, you'd know that the invention rate is exponential. You can try to change the definition of invention until you're blue in the face, but the vast majority of technology used today was not even on the radar 100 years ago. The exponential rate arises naturally from the mechanism of scientific progress: exponential functions are the solution to first-order differential equations. Since the rate of advancement depends on the current level of advancement (dI/dt=c*I(t)), an exponentially increasing rate is guaranteed unless a catastrophic event occurs in which a significant portion of knowledge is lost. Thus, the only way your assertion could possibly be true is if the ancient Sumerian culture (or some other ancient culture whose knowledge base was lost) had previously invented much of what we have today only to be wiped out.

Books on the subject include:
Human Accomplishment - this covers inventions and inventers in every area from music to physics
History of Invention - this gives a good perspective on many important inventions
Visual Timeline of Inventions - this is a kid's book, so it might be more on your level

 

[PrinceofWands]

If you even know how to read and bothered to open a book rather than insulting your betters, you'd know that the invention rate is exponential. You can try to change the definition of invention until you're blue in the face, but the vast majority of technology used today was not even on the radar 100 years ago. The exponential rate arises naturally from the mechanism of scientific progress: exponential functions are the solution to first-order differential equations. Since the rate of advancement depends on the current level of advancement (dI/dt=c*I(t)), an exponentially increasing rate is guaranteed unless a catastrophic event occurs in which a significant portion of knowledge is lost. Thus, the only way your assertion could possibly be true is if the ancient Sumerian culture (or some other ancient culture whose knowledge base was lost) had previously invented much of what we have today only to be wiped out.

Books on the subject include:
Human Accomplishment - this covers inventions and inventers in every area from music to physics
History of Invention - this gives a good perspective on many important inventions
Visual Timeline of Inventions - this is a kid's book, so it might be more on your level

I changed nothing - I gave the dictionary definition of invention, copied and pasted. Just because YOU went searching for something to fit your lies and bullshit is no reason to think you have an argument.

Newflash dipshit: modern technology isn't the only form of invention. You know that fork you eat with? That was an invention. The shoes people wear? Invention. Doors. Windows. Carpets. Language. etc. All inventions. Trying to narrow 'invention' down so you don't look like a fucking moron isn't going to win you anything.

Again, most modern things are nothing more than refinements or expansions, not inventions. Please cite from your works the exact page numbers and passages which suggest that of ALL THINGS which have ever existed, there are more unique items AFTER 1450 than before.

Then, when you're done failing on that, let's look at a second facet of this conversation: magnitude of impact. You tell me how much incredible magnitude there was in the invention of the sneaker pump, and then I'll counter with religion. You tell me all about viagra (which is honestly not an invention, just a refinement of 15,000 years of guys being into boners), and I'll counter with the wheel. You hit me with the beer hat, I'll hit you with iron. Etc, etc, etc. Now this is a separate issue mind you...I'm not moving the target, I'm opening up a second, concurrent line of how the modern patent system doesn't mean a fucking thing.

Oh, and as for your tripe about exponentially increasing rate: the fires at Alexandria, the dark ages, lack of permanent record and communication leading to independent invention and reinvention for 10,000 years, etc.

Oh, and two other points:

1. If inventions is, as you claim, merely a factor of time (ie it's a set increase), then I win the argument because the patent system is rendered irrelevant. It's just a matter of time.

2. Please describe for me the method of controlling for population, rather than merely time. Because IF it turns out that this supposed flood of invention (and not refinement) can be correlated simply to crowdsourcing and statistics (ie enough darts at the board has to hit a bullseye eventually) then again I win the argument since it's not patents, but merely a matter of manpower.

If you can do neither, then all of your time/growth arguments are out the window, and we're back to he said/she said.

 

[Texashiker]

$0. "The greater good" is not a term in the accounting equation a company must solve when preparing its annual report. It has zero value. The greater good is served when the company makes a profit and plows that back in to developing new drugs.

It is a sad day when society is ruled by how much money we can make.

I often wonder how much harm greed has done to humanity.

 

[CycloWizard]

I changed nothing - I gave the dictionary definition of invention, copied and pasted. Just because YOU went searching for something to fit your lies and bullshit is no reason to think you have an argument.

Newflash dipshit: modern technology isn't the only form of invention. You know that fork you eat with? That was an invention. The shoes people wear? Invention. Doors. Windows. Carpets. Language. etc. All inventions. Trying to narrow 'invention' down so you don't look like a fucking moron isn't going to win you anything.

Again, most modern things are nothing more than refinements or expansions, not inventions. Please cite from your works the exact page numbers and passages which suggest that of ALL THINGS which have ever existed, there are more unique items AFTER 1450 than before.

Then, when you're done failing on that, let's look at a second facet of this conversation: magnitude of impact. You tell me how much incredible magnitude there was in the invention of the sneaker pump, and then I'll counter with religion. You tell me all about viagra (which is honestly not an invention, just a refinement of 15,000 years of guys being into boners), and I'll counter with the wheel. You hit me with the beer hat, I'll hit you with iron. Etc, etc, etc. Now this is a separate issue mind you...I'm not moving the target, I'm opening up a second, concurrent line of how the modern patent system doesn't mean a fucking thing.

Oh, and as for your tripe about exponentially increasing rate: the fires at Alexandria, the dark ages, lack of permanent record and communication leading to independent invention and reinvention for 10,000 years, etc.

Oh, and two other points:

1. If inventions is, as you claim, merely a factor of time (ie it's a set increase), then I win the argument because the patent system is rendered irrelevant. It's just a matter of time.

2. Please describe for me the method of controlling for population, rather than merely time. Because IF it turns out that this supposed flood of invention (and not refinement) can be correlated simply to crowdsourcing and statistics (ie enough darts at the board has to hit a bullseye eventually) then again I win the argument since it's not patents, but merely a matter of manpower.

If you can do neither, then all of your time/growth arguments are out the window, and we're back to he said/she said.

Really, you can't even supply a link to a nutjob website but you want me to give line numbers from textbooks? And I went digging for a definition that suited my purpose - in the Merriam-Webster dictionary - the most-used dictionary in the United States? You really are an asshole. A very ignorant asshole, at that. You have forks, fire, wheels, clothing. I have satellites, tanks, missiles, transistors, telephones, software, coffee makers, television, VHS, CDs, radios, radar, airplanes, helicopters, energy systems, modern medicine, medical devices, composite materials, chemistry, the internet, computers, lasers, masers, motors, engines, sensors, actuators, control systems, digital imaging, chemical processing, structural engineering, microwave ovens, many genres of music and art, plastics, wireless technology, and other things I can't even see from my desk here. You're either completely retarded, bad at math, or too stupid to admit you're wrong even when it's woefully obvious to everyone around you.

 

[dank69]

It is a sad day when society is ruled by how much money we can make.

I often wonder how much harm greed has done to humanity.

Everyone knows God doesn't care about how greedy you were during your life. All that matter is whether or not you were baptised. It's not like greed is one of the seven deadly sins or anything.

 

[CycloWizard]

It is a sad day when society is ruled by how much money we can make.

I often wonder how much harm greed has done to humanity.

Do you get paid for your work? Assuming you do, why do you demand a wage - why not volunteer?

 

[BoberFett]

Do you get paid for your work? Assuming you do, why do you demand a wage - why not volunteer?

Because it's not his calling. People who do service jobs like teachers and doctors should do it out of the goodness of their hearts, not because they want to get paid. It's completely different. You're just too greedy to understand.

 

[Pr0d1gy]

Do you get paid for your work? Assuming you do, why do you demand a wage - why not volunteer?

That is the epitome of a stupid question. Greed does not = survival.

 

[Retro Rob]

Do you get paid for your work? Assuming you do, why do you demand a wage - why not volunteer?

I thought he was referring to how much people need to live comfortably as opposed to how much some folks want.

...or wants > needs = greed.

I guess...

 

[diesbudt]

Everyone knows God doesn't care about how greedy you were during your life. All that matter is whether or not you were baptised. It's not like greed is one of the seven deadly sins or anything.

It is a deadly sin. However deadly sins are not against any religion, it is just a sin that can lead one down a path that would cause them to break a commandment between them and god. The definition of greed has gotten too diluted recently also.

It is : an obsession to always wanting more, willing to plow through any and all obstacles to obtain what is sought after. And after that wanting more. Never feeling satisfied with what one has. Also requires a selfish desire to drive it. As in not sharing or doing things for other people.

 

[dank69]

It is a deadly sin. However deadly sins are not against any religion, it is just a sin that can lead one down a path that would cause them to break a commandment between them and god. The definition of greed has gotten too diluted recently also.

It is : an obsession to always wanting more, willing to plow through any and all obstacles to obtain what is sought after. And after that wanting more. Never feeling satisfied with what one has. Also requires a selfish desire to drive it. As in not sharing or doing things for other people.

That sounds about right.