What do you think of the following proposal?

[Anarchist420]

I favor complete abolition of patents and copyrights, but unfortunately, only reduction is possible for the foreseeable future. Here's the proposal:

2 patents granted per year to Big Pharma.
not more than 4% of patents granted in 2010 can be granted per year after 2010.
Decriminalization of copyright infringement (a repeal of the DMCA) plus monetary damages curbed for patent violation.
No one can be forced to recall an infringing product that's already been released from the factory.
Repeal of America Invents Act.
A reduction of all patents and copyrights length to 7 years.
Increase in filing fees for large corporations.

 

[CPA]

Think about this for a minute (I know it's hard for you), if you're running a pharmaceutical company, what incentive do you have to pour billions of dollars of research into a new drug, if you know that the moment you release, hell probably even before that, you will have copycat drugs. I know the hell I wouldn't, as it would make no economic sense at all.

Also, filing fees are a STATE issue not a federal issue. And what is the point in raising them?

 

[Modelworks]

copyrights are needed as are patents. The problem is the way the laws are written need to be changed. Patent law needs a revamp where just changing one word doesn't make it a new patent.

Penalties for DMCA violations need increases of 1000% for those who willingly violated them. If you are caught copying something that the owner did not give you permission to do then you deserve to be prosecuted. You have a choice to not involve yourself with the DMCA related material.

If you release a product and it harms people then you should be prosecuted under the law. Recalls are chosen methods for companies to settle complaints, they are not forced, the companies can instead choose to suffer damages.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Answer this.

Why would you invest money in something that will ultimately cost you more than you will make from it?

Reform yes, abolition no.

 

[Demo24]

So basically you support the following:

A) a decrease in innovation
B) other people stealing other peoples ideas, and profiting from them.

How exactly does this solve anything, other than your incredibly stupid ideology of dismantling all governmental institutions. News flash, lawless societies do not equal better societies.

 

[AyashiKaibutsu]

Software patents need to be abolished. Handle software as copyrighted material. Otherwise just implementation could use some changing.

 

[Anarchist420]

Think about this for a minute (I know it's hard for you), if you're running a pharmaceutical company, what incentive do you have to pour billions of dollars of research into a new drug, if you know that the moment you release, hell probably even before that, you will have copycat drugs. I know the hell I wouldn't, as it would make no economic sense at all.

Also, filing fees are a STATE issue not a federal issue. And what is the point in raising them?

Increasing filing fees would possibly discourage people from seeking a patent.

You could be first to the market and still make a profit; sure the risk is a little bit greater and the profit won't be as much, but it's still possible to invent something and make a profit without patents. You could pay your employees less, management and advertising could go with a smaller budget also. Big Pharma's profit margins are much higher than that of the average industry so they could still make a profit without patents. If they're so creative, then they're creative enough to run their company and do their research efficiently.

 

[Ausm]

I favor complete abolition of patents and copyrights, but unfortunately, only reduction is possible for the foreseeable future. Here's the proposal:

2 patents granted per year to Big Pharma.
not more than 4% of patents granted in 2010 can be granted per year after 2010.
Decriminalization of copyright infringement (a repeal of the DMCA) plus monetary damages curbed for patent violation.
No one can be forced to recall an infringing product that's already been released from the factory.
Repeal of America Invents Act.
A reduction of all patents and copyrights length to 7 years.
Increase in filing fees for large corporations.

It's time to graduate from sniffing paint fumes to huffing Toluene

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Increasing filing fees would possibly discourage people from seeking a patent.

You could be first to the market and still make a profit; sure the risk is a little bit greater and the profit won't be as much, but it's still possible to invent something and make a profit without patents. You could pay your employees less, management and advertising could go with a smaller budget also. Big Pharma's profit margins are much higher than that of the average industry so they could still make a profit without patents. If they're so creative, then they're creative enough to run their company and do their research efficiently.

Sure it's possible. Now what will happen is that if you come up with an idea you won't be paid for it so there's no point. Research is inherently expensive. Even if you paid your workers minimum wage you'd still have to fork out big bucks for many things. Oh, no you wouldn't because people who would be making things for you do research have no reason to innovate because someone took their ideas for nothing. So what really happens is that everything is public domain and there is no improvement. 2011 forever.

 

[Texashiker]

OP has probably never invented or created anything, so he things copyrights and patents are bad.

 

[CrackRabbit]

I think you should stop posting, again.

 

[piasabird]

Patents actually just increase profits at the expense of innovation. It takes 2-10 years to go from an idea to a product that makes money. For software, copyrights are silly. A programming language exists the same for everyone. I dont see that putting a few lines of code together creates an copyrightable event. Read, Write, Display. There is nothing new under the sun. Plus a copyright of a few lines of code just slows down innovation. This flies in the face of Object Oriented Programming.

 

[Anarchist420]

OP has probably never invented or created anything, so he things copyrights and patents are bad.

That's not why. Suppose someone wanted to make a life-size doll of Keifer Sutherland that has a vagina that you can put something in and makes a pfft-sound after you take it out and then the maker of it calls the doll "Queefer Sutherland"? That's a simultaneous invention because I can be 100% sure that I'm not the first person to think of that. However, I thought about it on my own and simultaneous inventions are just one of many ethical issues with having patents.

 

[Texashiker]

That's not why.

Have you ever created anything of value on your own?

Something that you might want to sale, market or other wise make money off of?

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

That's not why. Suppose someone wanted to make a life-size doll of Keifer Sutherland that has a vagina that you can put something in and makes a pfft-sound after you take it out and then the maker of it calls the doll "Queefer Sutherland"? That's a simultaneous invention because I can be 100% sure that I'm not the first person to think of that. However, I thought about it on my own and simultaneous inventions are just one of many ethical issues with having patents.

So we're going to invent random and useless items that no one wants?

 

[Don Vito Corleone]

Am I the only one who saw the thread title and the identity of the OP and immediately assumed I'd be seeing a naive and senseless idea under discussion?

Unfortunately it appears my instincts were correct. The OP's idea would essentially destroy any incentive for corporations to incur significant R&D costs to develop anything, and a resulting diminution in our quality of life. Thanks but no thanks.

 

[ShawnD1]

It's time to graduate from sniffing paint fumes to huffing Toluene

You ever try smoking toluene? The shit blew up in my face.

Patents actually just increase profits at the expense of innovation. It takes 2-10 years to go from an idea to a product that makes money. For software, copyrights are silly. A programming language exists the same for everyone. I dont see that putting a few lines of code together creates an copyrightable event. Read, Write, Display. There is nothing new under the sun. Plus a copyright of a few lines of code just slows down innovation. This flies in the face of Object Oriented Programming.

You could say the same thing about book copyright. We all have the same letters and words to work with so how can it be original material? The copyright doesn't look at 1 or 2 lines. It's when entire pages are 100% copied word for word.

 

[Munky]

I have a simpler solution - make it legal to import pharmaceutical drugs from outside the US. Pharma collusion and price gouging finished. Patents aren't really the problem here.

 

[ShawnD1]

I have a simpler solution - make it legal to import pharmaceutical drugs from outside the US. Pharma collusion and price gouging finished. Patents aren't really the problem here.

This currently is not allowed?

 

[Demo24]

That's not why. Suppose someone wanted to make a life-size doll of Keifer Sutherland that has a vagina that you can put something in and makes a pfft-sound after you take it out and then the maker of it calls the doll "Queefer Sutherland"? That's a simultaneous invention because I can be 100% sure that I'm not the first person to think of that. However, I thought about it on my own and simultaneous inventions are just one of many ethical issues with having patents.

, I'm pretty sure I can be 100% certain that no one has thought of that before.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Am I the only one who saw the thread title and the identity of the OP and immediately assumed I'd be seeing a naive and senseless idea under discussion?

Unfortunately it appears my instincts were correct. The OP's idea would essentially destroy any incentive for corporations to incur significant R&D costs to develop anything, and a resulting diminution in our quality of life. Thanks but no thanks.

Although it has little to do with the OP there are considerable issues to be addressed. Consider that patent law is an industry to itself. When companies buy others merely to gain patents in order to use them to shut down competitors then something is definately wrong. That doesn't help innovation or the public either.

 

[woolfe9999]

Although it has little to do with the OP there are considerable issues to be addressed. Consider that patent law is an industry to itself. When companies buy others merely to gain patents in order to use them to shut down competitors then something is definately wrong. That doesn't help innovation or the public either.

I don't see a problem with that, per se. The problem is where something is being patented which shouldn't be patented, like computer software. As a matter of public policy, patenting software should be disallowed because it is too difficult to define the patent in a way that isn't overly broad and hence stifles the innovation of others. If it is something that should be legitimately patentable, however, I see no problem with companies buying it up and shutting down competitors, if in fact those competitors are infringing the patent. It goes back to why we have patents to begin with.

 

[Jaepheth]

I have considered your opinion, and have come to the following conclusion:

Yar har fiddle dee dee.
Being a pirate is alright to be!
Do what you want 'cause a pirate is free.
You are a pirate.

I think copyright and patent law needs to be reformed though. I think it'd be nice if the two could be joined into one unified intellectual property paradigm. I don't think I've heard a good argument for why a copyright should last longer than a patent. Maybe they should both run the same length of time... say... 15ish years.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

I don't see a problem with that, per se. The problem is where something is being patented which shouldn't be patented, like computer software. As a matter of public policy, patenting software should be disallowed because it is too difficult to define the patent in a way that isn't overly broad and hence stifles the innovation of others. If it is something that should be legitimately patentable, however, I see no problem with companies buying it up and shutting down competitors, if in fact those competitors are infringing the patent. It goes back to why we have patents to begin with.

I'm not addressing buying competitors, but acquiring them for the sole purpose of acquiring their patents in order to destroy those that they had no legitimate right to attack before. The patent system was introduced for the purpose of fostering innovation and the protection of inventors. Apple buying out businesses to it can attack others does neither. It subverts protection and makes it a weapon.

 

[Munky]

This currently is not allowed?

No, it's actually illegal