Economics and Personal Finances General Off-Topic


Why Patents and Copyrights should be abolished

 
Join the Forum Community!  
Why Patents and Copyrights should be abolished Can't Post
First of all what is a patent? Well according to the U.S. Patent and Trademark Offices website:
"The right conferred by the patent grant is, in the language of the statute and of the grant itself, “the right to exclude others from making, using, offering for sale, or selling” the invention in the United States or “importing” the invention into the United States. What is granted is not the right to make, use, offer for sale, sell or import, but the right to exclude others from making, using, offering for sale, selling or importing the invention."
(http://www.uspto.gov/...al/index.html#patent)

Thus, to answer the question I begin with, a patent is purely an instrument of monopolization. Contrary to what most people believe, patents do not protect people's ideas. They serve to give patent holders, whomever they may be, the privilege of being the exclusive manufacturers of certain products and technologies. Why is this a problem? Well it explains why prices are so high, why our economy is dominated by large monopolistic businesses and why most people depend entirely on jobs and job benefits because they have no means of employing themselves.

In a truly free market, there are no monopolies on production. All manufacturers are free to make whatever products they want regardless if who originally developed them. They are also free to apply their own ideas to existing products thereby maximizing innovation. Competition between multitudes of nonexclusive and independent manufacturers keeps wholesale prices low and fairly consistent which, in turn, gives small retailers more opportunities to make money. This benefits families and individuals the most. Ultimately, the freedom of the people is directly proportional to the freedom of productivity in the market.

In order to give patent holders exclusive rights over production, the law must necessarily deny it from everyone else. And that is patently unjust.
Harbinger
New User

Mar 16, 2008, 2:14 AM

Post #1 of 8 (676 views)

Re: [Harbinger] Why Patents and Copyrights should be abolished [In reply to] Can't Post
Hello and welcome to the board.

You missed one important and crucial role the patent or copyright plays: it is incentive. No patent or copyright = no reason to innovate or create since you can't protect your ideas and people are inherently greedy. Unless you provide different incentives patents need to stay.

econmod
Broker

Mar 16, 2008, 7:02 PM

Post #2 of 8 (664 views)

Re: [econmod] Why Patents and Copyrights should be abolished [In reply to] Can't Post
Thank you, nice to be here! Smile

To create incentives? Aren't there plenty of incentives already? I thought necessity was the mother of invention.

And why should I care if other people want to copy my inventions? It's not as if they're commiting larceny. It doesn't deprive me of my right to manufacture and sell my inventions, it just gives me some fair competition. It should only be noted as an historical matter of fact that I, or my company, was the origionator of a particular idea or invention.

(This post was edited by Harbinger on Mar 16, 2008, 9:49 PM)
Harbinger
New User

Mar 16, 2008, 9:43 PM

Post #3 of 8 (661 views)

Re: [Harbinger] Why Patents and Copyrights should be abolished [In reply to] Can't Post
Basically you describe altruism, creating a product for the betterment of society but for no personal or material gain. People are not inherently altruistic, you will not work to create or innovate if the instant you release it is copied and you make nothing. How do you get compensated for your time to create products if you're ripped off the instant you release?

Welcome btw!

Join the Econ-Community 4 FREE!
Mod
Webmaster / Moderator

Mar 18, 2008, 10:48 AM

Post #4 of 8 (632 views)

Re: [Mod] Why Patents and Copyrights should be abolished [In reply to] Can't Post
Thanks Mod. Cool

I don't see how it couldn't be altruism because companies would still be motivated by profits. If your company introduces a new product, other companies aren't going to copy your product at the drop of a hat. They're going to want to wait and see if your product even sells. That's going to give you a window of opportunity in which you will be the exclusive seller of your product and that will give you the opportunity to charge a premium for it. If it sells well enough that other companies believe it would be worth their while to clone it, they still have to organize a manufacturing process and marketing strategy and that's going to give you even more time to recover your costs selling your product at a premium. By the time they have a clone of your product in their stores, consumers are going to be quite familiar with your product. Consumers will know that the other products are clones. By then, your company may have a new and improved model on the market. So a free market (one without patents and copyrights) would not be nearly as unfortunate as some would believe.


(This post was edited by Harbinger on Mar 18, 2008, 12:56 PM)
Harbinger
New User

Mar 18, 2008, 12:50 PM

Post #5 of 8 (627 views)

Re: [Harbinger] Why Patents and Copyrights should be abolished [In reply to] Can't Post
My view of patents reminds me of the time I saw my mother-in-law go over a cliff in my new car, I have mixed emotions.

There is some truth in the incentive argument but not the whole truth. Patents today are being abused at a great rate. Those with power are actually patenting commodities that have been around for hundreds of years. The patent office budget is tied to the number of patents they issued in the previous year. If that isn't asking for trouble I don't know what is.

There are very few "hard patents". That is a term for a patent that you can't work around by changing the design slightly. If held by a large firm with deep pockets they can be an effective tool in harassment law suits but are useless to the little guy.

Don't forget that those who do the actual work are rewarded with a paycheck and not millions and billions of dollars. Who says they won't work at invention for a salary? Thomas Edison owned an invention factory that employed lots of people to invent. No one refused because they wouldn't become rich.

If I do not write software just to get rich someone else will write it just for the challenge and for the personal satisfaction. Look at Linux.

Last but not least look at the pharmaceutical industry. Until recently most of the research was carried out in universities using tax payers dollars. The patents to these results were then sold to some pharmaceutical company for a small fraction of the cost of the research. No pharma has a research budget larger than their marketing budget.

I'm not saying there are no benefits for the public in patents but it is a system that has gone amock.

Zan
Teller

Apr 12, 2008, 12:58 AM

Post #6 of 8 (586 views)

Re: [Harbinger] Why Patents and Copyrights should be abolished [In reply to] Can't Post
My opinion of copyrights is similar to that of patents. When an artist claims a right to compensation from all the copies of an initial performances (labor), they are claiming that every copy is equivalent to their initial performance. That's ridiculous. I work in construction. If I could somehow copy my labor onto CDs, I wouldn't need to go to work. I could just leave a CD at work and have my paychecks mailed to me at home. Not only that, I could apply for work with every construction company in the world and then give them all a copy of my CD while collecting a check from each and every one of them at home. Laugh See what I mean?

The err I'm trying to point out here is that a copy of a performance does not constitute an output of labor from the artist so the artist cannot be entitled to compensation from it.

Just as we should only be entitled to compensation from the products of our own labor and capital, an artist should only be entitled to compensation from their initial performances, not from any copies.

Harbinger
New User

Apr 12, 2008, 4:14 AM

Post #7 of 8 (584 views)

Re: [Mod] Why Patents and Copyrights should be abolished [In reply to] Can't Post
In Reply To
People are not inherently altruistic, you will not work to create or innovate if the instant you release it is copied and you make nothing. How do you get compensated for your time to create products if you're ripped off the instant you release?


I heard an idea that involves announcing your idea, then getting investors/consumers/customers (who would presumably use the product themselves) to pay you to make your product (they'd pay you the marginal cost of development and production).

... I'm really now sure how well this idea would work, but it could theoretically work, maybe. Unless the cost of development is too high--I think people expect to pay the marginal cost of production, not also the marginal cost of development.
______________
Talk hard.
http://jdvn100.googlepages.com/crossroads
Jdvn1
Banker

Aug 14, 2008, 10:23 AM

Post #8 of 8 (322 views)

  Visit Our Blog