Apple sues Samsung over "copying" iPhone and iPad

The exclusive right to use an invention or copy a thing is unethical to grant, even to the creator. It's an usurpation: Knowledge legitimately belongs to everybody.

edited 25th Apr '11 8:00:56 PM by SavageHeathen

You exist because we allow it and you will end because we demand it.

But why is it unethical? This appears to be a fundamental tenet for you, but I don't see what is wrong with patents in principle (same with IP in general). I don't have a problem with the idea of society granting a limited monopoly to an innovator in order to allow their act of creation to work within the rest of the economy.

IP restricts the free flow and free use of ideas. It impedes the have-nots from getting full and unrestricted access to culture, furthering the sociocultural divide between the haves and the have nots.

It allows companies to hold monopoly prices over revolutionary and deal-changing technologies, slowing down their adoption AND furthering the tech divide between the haves and the have nots.

It's an unethical and unnatural monstrosity. We have more to earn by making all current tech and current knowledge cheap than by rewarding creativity through the granting of immoral monopolies.

edited 25th Apr '11 8:20:10 PM by SavageHeathen

You exist because we allow it and you will end because we demand it.

There are only a finite number of ideas in existence, too, Savage.

As to the article linked earlier-

... Their claims are even more unproven than Madrugada's.

And, uh, no...

Please tell me you are not claiming a biased source as fact to back up your claim.

There are too many toasters in my chimney!

That's not what scarce means. Ideas can be expressed and reproduced, at virtually no cost.

Even if only X ideas have been thought, any of those can be copied inexpensively. Knowledge is non-scarce.

You exist because we allow it and you will end because we demand it.

I don't believe cherry-picking quotes is the way to go. You seem to be misrepresenting the article rather strongly.

And you're misrepresenting my words as well, I said it questions the number, and it does. If you have a problem with the questions they ask, please do tell.

But hey, if you want the original Light and Warbuton study is available for you to peruse.

edited 25th Apr '11 8:46:57 PM by blueharp

Idea can be reproduced for virtually nothing, but you cannot share them without expending resources, Savage. Little correction there.

@ Blueharp: I do indeed have a problem with the article- in that the article shows a clear bias. It uses accusatory words, and indeed, makes claims which really should be backed up there in the article.

A quick Google search turned up this; perhaps you could try it?

edited 25th Apr '11 8:48:08 PM by CyganAngel

There are too many toasters in my chimney!

I don't consider it as biased as you do, so we're really on entirely different pages there.

If you want to dig further, you can look at the original study referenced in the article.

Then tell us what's wrong with the questions they ask.

Perhaps you could give me a link? As I cannot seem to find a link or, indeed, even the study's name within the article.

There are too many toasters in my chimney!

What are you searching for? And where? Maybe you need to try a different engine.

edited 25th Apr '11 9:13:02 PM by blueharp

The study mentioned in the article.

With Google and Yahoo.

edited 25th Apr '11 9:13:48 PM by CyganAngel

There are too many toasters in my chimney!

And your search is???

While I agree patents impede free use for a limited amount of time, they certainly don't impede free access - quite the opposite. Part of the whole deal of patents is that we've got full access to the details of the idea, permanently on record so they won't be lost to society. We can access the full description of every granted patent right now on the internet.

The alternative will be that all new ideas will be closely guarded trade secrets, many of which will be lost when the originator goes out of business or dies.

Uh, yes? That's the point of patents. In return for developing and sharing new ideas, the patent holder gets around twenty years to control exclusivity. It's how society rewards innovation.

It's not as if these new technologies sprang out of nowhere. The company either did the R&D itself or paid another group for the use of their patent. If we remove the incentive to do the R&D, why would they bother doing it? Why not base your business of all the other IP that everyone else has done for you - much cheaper, less risk.

Ignoring the "unethical" part (I'd ask "why" again ), abolishing IP would indeed in the short term make all current tech and knowledge cheap. It would also remove all commercial incentive to invest in new tech and knowledge. You would have to argue that the trade off of flooding the market with cheap clones is worth bringing R&D to a screeching halt, because my immediate reaction is "Noooooooo!"

a 2003 study by the Center for the Study of Drug Development

It's the closest thing to a name I could find.

There are too many toasters in my chimney!

That's the original Tufts study.

Then there's absolutely nothing on the study refuting that.

There are too many toasters in my chimney!

Sounds like you might want to re-read the article.

Please, point me towards anywhere within th article where it either names the study, links to it or provides a quote to anything it claims it says to back up its' claims in turn.

There are too many toasters in my chimney!

Really, if you want to criticize Michael Hiltzik's writing, you should take it up with him, not me.

But this is getting far enough off-topic, so that's enough for me. If you really want to discuss the issue of Research and the Pharmaceutical further, it'd probably be better to start a new thread.

edited 25th Apr '11 11:38:06 PM by blueharp

I wasn't criticizing his writing. I was criticizing the use of this article to try and back up the point being made.

There are too many toasters in my chimney!

Information isn't the scarce part of IP, the scarce part are the resources that went into creating that information. In the absence of IP protection laws, that scarcity would still exist, and people would find alternative ways of protecting it, namely secrecy and monopolization of the means of production. IP protection allows information to be promulgated without fear or abuse.

Eric,

There is a huge tech divide between the rich and the poor. Giving the working class cheap access to all tech and free access to all culture is worth ANY trade-off.

When there is no such tech divide or cultural divide at all, we may speak about rewarding innovation again. Free access to information and free access to the use of all technology trumps rewarding R&D.

edited 26th Apr '11 4:48:07 AM by SavageHeathen

You exist because we allow it and you will end because we demand it.

Correct me if I am mistaken, but I do believe most tech are leisure objects. Nobody has a right to anything beyond shelter, an education, food, water, hygiene and medicine.

Beyond that, I do not believe that anyone has a right to further tech; they have to work towards it. Furthermore, I do not believe anyone should be given such a right.

People have the right to necessities. That is it. Anything beyond that should be worked towards earning.

There are too many toasters in my chimney!

That's completely backwards.

You (nor society, nor anybody) do not determine what is a neccessity and what is a luxury.

People trump corporations. Free access to stuff trumps the right to get rich through monopoly pricing.

If patents are so vital, they might be granted for a VERY short time (think 1-3 years), and come with strings attached, namely, price controls.

edited 26th Apr '11 5:09:03 AM by SavageHeathen

You exist because we allow it and you will end because we demand it.

A necessity is anything we need to survive.

If you do not need it to survive, then why should we give it to you?

What, do you just expect us to give it to you without you doing anything to earn it?

Because that's how it goes. You earn things. You do not have the damned right to demand anything you want just because you feel you should have it.

That, kiddo, is called having an entitlement issue.

There are too many toasters in my chimney!