or Connect
Styleforum › Forums › General › Current Events, Power and Money › Stupid political crap your friends post on facebook.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Stupid political crap your friends post on facebook. - Page 118

post #1756 of 5454
Quote:
Originally Posted by why View Post

What does any of this have to do with research funding? Do you understand what research is? Do you understand that there is no such thing as intellectual property for possible ideas? I mean, I think it goes without explaining that a person or company has no rights to ideas they've never had.

Go back and read the quote from Gibonius I was responding to.... what I said had nothing to do with research funding and everything to do with large-scale rapid implementation of new tech.
post #1757 of 5454
Quote:
Originally Posted by ChicagoRon View Post

If we had a more sensible intellectual property law in this country, Gov't investment wouldn't be needed for that either.

IP law is ridiculous, and only getting worse. Why innovate when you can kill competition before it even has a chance?

"For 1st time this year spending by Apple & Google on patent lawsuits and patent purchases exceeded spending on R&D of new products"

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/08/technology/patent-wars-among-tech-giants-can-stifle-competition.html?smid=tw-share&_r=0
post #1758 of 5454
Quote:
Originally Posted by why View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by ChicagoRon View Post

If we had a more sensible intellectual property law in this country, Gov't investment wouldn't be needed for that either.

Yeah, maybe Einstein's estate should be receiving royalties for general relativity.

You say some dumb stuff, but this is tops.

(Yes, I'm aware of the dates of the anachronism but it gets the point across better than other more obscure discoveries).
Quote:
Originally Posted by why View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by ChicagoRon View Post

Not sure you understand the point. Our intellectual property laws are too favorable for inventors.
If we had a major breakthrough that would require a mass conversion of vehicles and rapid build-out of infrastructure, it could easily be accomplished in the private sector if the technology were shared and all parties had an opportunity to enter the market.

IP laws are too protective of intellectual property, therefore the private sector doesn't invest in intellectual property. Solid logic.

The solution to the problem of lack of private investment into research which may never a profitable application is to lower the amount of profit a potential investor might receive if it does in fact yield an application. Again, solid logic.

Also, do you understand the difference between research and industry and the fact that many (likely most) advances precede their applications or even the remotest glimpse of their potential applications? That is, Boole didn't sit down and develop his algebra so that one day we all could be posting nonsense on an Internet forum.

Ha! Allow me to paraphrase:
Quote:
Dude, your idea is back-asswards. You are dumb.
Quote:
Oh, you were actually arguing the opposite point, and I misunderstood? F--- that, you're still wrong!
post #1759 of 5454
Quote:
Originally Posted by harvey_birdman View Post

IP law is ridiculous, and only getting worse. Why innovate when you can kill competition before it even has a chance?
"For 1st time this year spending by Apple & Google on patent lawsuits and patent purchases exceeded spending on R&D of new products"
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/08/technology/patent-wars-among-tech-giants-can-stifle-competition.html?smid=tw-share&_r=0

The big problem is how low the bar is to get a patent in the computer industry especially. It becomes more profitable to acquire patents and sit on them (instead of actually using the technology), then make your money through litigation. Patent trolling are a huge problem that needs to be taken care of.
post #1760 of 5454
Quote:
Originally Posted by Van Veen View Post

The big problem is how low the bar is to get a patent in the computer industry especially. It becomes more profitable to acquire patents and sit on them (instead of actually using the technology), then make your money through litigation. Patent trolling are a huge problem that needs to be taken care of.

It's not just tech, though. From the mises wiki (emphasis added by me):
Quote:
Originally Posted by http://wiki.mises.org/wiki/Intellectual_property 
Arguments against intellectual property
Ethical and natural rights arguments

Stephan Kinsella's seminal article, Against Intellectual Property outlines the modern libertarian case against all forms of intellectual property.[12] Kinsella's paper focuses on the unethical nature of intellectual property rights. They are always in opposition to real material property rights. They are a straightforward government grant of monopoly to a favored producer.

Some libertarian proponents of IP argue that certain ideas deserve protection as property rights because they are created. Rand supported patents and copyrights as "the legal implementation of the base of all property rights: a man’s right to the product of his mind." For Rand, IP rights are, in a sense, the reward for productive work. It is only fair that a creator reap the benefits of others using his creation. For this reason, in part, she opposes perpetual patent and copyright—because future, unborn heirs of the original creator are not themselves responsible for the creation of their ancestors’ work.

One problem with the creation-based approach is that it almost invariably protects only certain types of creations. But the distinction between the protectable and the unprotectable is necessarily arbitrary. For example, philosophical or mathematical or scientific truths cannot be protected under current law on the grounds that commerce and social intercourse would grind to a halt were every new phrase, philosophical truth, and the like considered the exclusive property of its creator. For this reason, patents can be obtained only for so-called "practical applications" of ideas, but not for more abstract or theoretical ideas.

But the distinction between creation and discovery is not clearcut or rigorous. Nor is it clear why such a distinction, even if clear, is ethically relevant in defining property rights. No one creates matter; they just manipulate and grapple with it according to physical laws. In this sense, no one really creates anything. They merely rearrange matter into new arrangements and patterns.

It is arbitrary and unfair to reward more practical inventors and entertainment providers, such as the engineer and songwriter, and to leave more theoretical science and math researchers and philosophers unrewarded. The distinction is inherently vague, arbitrary, and unjust.

Moreover, adopting a limited term for IP rights, as opposed to a perpetual right, also requires arbitrary rules. For example, patents last for twenty years from the filing date, while copyrights last, in the case of individual authors, for seventy years past the author’s death. No one can seriously maintain that nineteen years for a patent is too short, and twenty-one years too long, any more than the current price for a gallon of milk can be objectively classified as too low or too high.[13]
Utilitarian

Utilitarians hold that the "end" of encouraging more innovation and creativity justifies the seemingly immoral "means" of restricting the freedom of individuals to use their physical property as they see fit.

Kinsella points out three fundamental problems with justifying any right or law on strictly utilitarian grounds:

First, let us suppose that wealth or utility could be maximized by adopting certain legal rules; the "size of the pie" is increased. Even then, this does not show that these rules are justified. For example, one could argue that net utility is enhanced by redistributing half of the wealth of society’s richest one percent to its poorest ten percent. But even if stealing some of A’s property and giving it to B increases B’s welfare "more" than it diminishes A’s (if such a comparison could, somehow, be made), this does not establish that the theft of A’s property is justified. Wealth maximization is not the goal of law; rather, the goal is justice—giving each man his due. Even if overall wealth is increased due to IP laws, it does not follow that this allegedly desirable result justifies the unethical violation of some individuals’ rights to use their own property as they see fit.
In addition to ethical problems, utilitarianism is not coherent. It necessarily involves making illegitimate interpersonal utility comparisons, as when the "costs" of IP laws are subtracted from the "benefits" to determine whether such laws are a net benefit. But not all values have a market price; in fact, none of them do. Mises showed that even for goods that have a market price, the price does not serve as a measure of the good’s value.
Finally, even if the other problems are set aside, it is not at all clear that IP laws lead to any change—either an increase or a decrease—in overall wealth. It is debatable whether copyrights and patents really are necessary to encourage the production of creative works and inventions, or that the incremental gains in innovation outweigh the immense costs of an IP system. Econometric studies do not conclusively show net gains in wealth. Perhaps there would even be more innovation if there were no patent laws; maybe more money for research and development (R&D) would be available if it were not being spent on patents and lawsuits. It is possible that companies would have an even greater incentive to innovate if they could not rely on a near twenty-year monopoly.[9]


Since advocates of intellectual property generally appeal to utilitarianism (that 'nothing will be created' if creators are not granted a monopoly over their creation), Michele Boldrin and David Levine have examined, in their book Against Intellectual Monopoly,[14] the empirical evidence for this claim. They find that, rather than stimulating creativity and innovation, intellectual property laws - especially patent laws - usually inhibit creativity and innovation.
post #1761 of 5454
I agree wholeheartedly with Ron on this one. IP laws as they stand just create artificial scarcity and enable all manner of rent seeking and monopolistic behavior. I was kind of hoping that the ridiculous Apple and Monsanto lawsuits would bring this issue to the forefront but it still seems to be on the fringes.
post #1762 of 5454
Quote:
Originally Posted by ChicagoRon View Post

Go back and read the quote from Gibonius I was responding to.... what I said had nothing to do with research funding and everything to do with large-scale rapid implementation of new tech.

What you responded to was Gibonius talking about federal money for fundamental research on projects like fusion and government infrastructure investment to support it. It has damn near nothing to do with private sector investment unless you're referring to the charging stations he was talking about (as an example, mind you) could and would be privatized, in which case I still have no idea what they have to do with IP law since there likely wouldn't be any intellectual property owned by a private company if the research for such were conducted and funded by public institutions in the first place. The issue of privately-held intellectual property simply never enters the picture Gibonious drew.

Really, what you're saying makes no sense. Step back a bit, read more carefully, and stop projecting ideology onto everything.
Edited by why - 10/8/12 at 11:31am
post #1763 of 5454
Quote:
Originally Posted by ChicagoRon View Post

It's not just tech, though. From the mises wiki (emphasis added by me):

What are you trying to use this quote for? What's your argument?
post #1764 of 5454
Quote:
Originally Posted by why View Post

What you responded to was Gibonius talking about federal money for fundamental research on projects like fusion and government infrastructure investment to support it. It has damn near nothing to do with private sector investment unless you're referring to the charging stations he was talking about (as an example, mind you) could and would be privatized, in which case I still have no idea what they have to do with IP law since there likely wouldn't be any intellectual property owned by a private company if the research for such were conducted and funded by public institutions in the first place. The issue of privately-held intellectual property simply never enters the picture Gibonious drew.
Really, what you're saying makes no sense. Step back a bit, read more carefully, and stop projecting ideology onto everything.

I should have been more specific... I meant this part:
Quote:
We may certainly get to a point where some level of mass government infrastructure investment is necessary. (for example) If we have a breakthrough on fusion, suddenly electric cars would be the obvious winner, but we'd need a mass rollout of charging stations. Lots of other possibilities, many unknown now but more likely in reality than that one. This isn't like the oil industry, which grew alongside the transportation network. We're going to need to hugely revamp some things, and that probably requires public money.

Even if the research were publicly funded, today's IP laws would certainly create a monopoly for some providers of charging stations.
Quote:
Originally Posted by why View Post

What are you trying to use this quote for? What's your argument?

Combination of two things - the first was direct response to "how low the bar is" - the issues exist beyond just software, they're just exaggerated in software. Second - the bolded directly responds to your odd argument about current applications of Boole's work in algebra. The underlying point is that major innovations should become public domain naturally. If you make something, and I can reverse engineer it and improve it, repackage it, etc., why shouldn't I be. You profited by selling me the product, have a huge advantage being first to market etc. Why do you ALSO need a Government enforced monopoly? Red Hat has very little ownership over intellectual property of their core product, yet they seem to be doing okay.
post #1765 of 5454
Quote:
Originally Posted by ChicagoRon View Post

I should have been more specific... I meant this part:
Even if the research were publicly funded, today's IP laws would certainly create a monopoly for some providers of charging stations.

How is that possible if there would be no intellectual property held by private industry?
post #1766 of 5454
Good question - how have companies patented things that basically work off the internet? Our laws are messed up.
post #1767 of 5454
OK - this is pretty F-ing awesome...and no I have not fact checked it... if somebody feels like it, I'd appreciate it.


post #1768 of 5454
A fast Google says Gary Knell is the new CEO of PBS. I could not find his salary but his predecessor make 450k in 2010 with a 125k bonus.
post #1769 of 5454
I couldn't find current numbers about PBS in a quick search but I could for NPR:




This is right above a paragraph that says federal funding is essential to the continuation of NPR. I also know that MPR used to make a lot of money from investments and selling MPR merchandise through a for-profit company that then donated a large part of the profit back to MPR because doing so directly would have likely caused them to lose their non-profit status. After a lot of outrage, I believe they have scaled that back.
post #1770 of 5454
Piob - I think you have that backwards. Knell is now at NPR, where he took over after leaving Sesame Workshop.

Either way, I looked at NPR's most recent 990, an article about Knell leaving Sesame Workshop, and a write up about PBS' CEO salary. It looks like the PBS number is pretty much correct but, unless Knell got an enormous raise over his predecessor, the NPR salary is inflated pretty significantly. That said, Knell earned a lot more when he was at Sesame Workshop, so they may be using his old salary and applying it to his new job.

The article from when Knell took over at NPR:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/style/npr-names-gary-knell-head-of-nonprofit-behind-sesame-street-as-chief-executive/2011/10/02/gIQAoqJeGL_story.html
Quote:
Knell will take a pay cut in his new job. According to NPR, he earned $684,144 at Sesame Workshop plus $62,000 in additional compensation in 2009, the last year public records were available. NPR did not disclose his salary but said it is in line with Schiller’s compensation; she received a base salary of $450,000 and a bonus of $125,000 in May 2010.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Current Events, Power and Money
Styleforum › Forums › General › Current Events, Power and Money › Stupid political crap your friends post on facebook.