Should patents be abolished or not?

In an industry like pharmaceuticals, patents make sense. It costs about a billion dollars to develop the average new drug. But a generic imitation might cost just 50 cents a pill. If innovators are not able to recoup their cost of development, there will be no-one left to innovate. But does every innovative idea need a 20 year monopoly?

Other urls found in this thread:

ctie.monash.edu.au/hargrave/pearse1.html
twitter.com/NSFWRedditImage

So in this case a company that invented a new drug is the only one that can produce it or give the licence to other for, say 5 years. Then for 10 more anybody can produce the new drug, but they have to give a reasonable amount of money to the inventor for every "unit" produced (however you define that for drugs). Let's say the later goes on about 10 years. So the company has 15 years to profit from the drug. That should be more than enough to cover all the costs. Then they are forced to invent a new drug or go out of business. I think this system would develop companies that are specialized either in R&D or in production.

Big pharma is completely fucking corrupt, but 20 year patent laws seems reasonable. While it's not popular to say, the idea that every single person should recieve the newest, best, and/or most expensive procedures or medicine is utopian nonsense. Let the 20 year patent monopoly exist and let the rich utilize the products and services, at which point competition should be allowed in to reduce the costs for the common man.

The problem is when we subsidize other nations with these technologies for practically free, and when these patents are allowed to be renewed at all, or in some cases in a de facto unlimited amount of time. Pair that with the entitled nature of people, who think healthcare is a right, and you get our current situation.

If you are smart, rich, or a combination of both and you invent something useful… awesome. We as a society should encourage that. We encourage such behavior by giving you a 20 year monopoly to make bank off from other rich people. Once your 20 years is up, then it should become open source and competition, in this context "generic drugs" should get to flood the market and make profit from mass production, and basically everyone who has a job should under most circumstances, have financial access.

Drugs cost a billion dollars in r&d, because of government regulations.

Ibuprofen would not be released today.

Regulation and taxation are sucking the blood out of the global economy.

there was a thread before about how Gisnep and other companies keep lobbying to push IP further and further back, so they can keep a monopoly on characters like mickey mouse; there was even a timeline infographic but I cba to go looking for it.

tl;dr jew-infested Gisnep is still living off the corpse of walt disney

That why NHS was founded it does all the research.
Pharmas do 0 research on their own, all they do is buy ownership to the drug.

Patents should be valid for 5 years.
Patent is valid if whole of market gets to use drug for 5 years and not get priced out into oblivion.

Yes.
No.
Patents are government-corporate lovebaby and so long as the government thinks it owns your mind, it can tell you which part of your mind (ideas that are (((patented)))) you are not allowed to use.
Keep the patents, most new drugs are made entirely for the patents and the pharama-hospital industry. Everyone that takes a moment to research this understands that most new drugs work less well than old drugs and have more side effects. Many "new" drugs" are literally old drugs with an added chain or group that either gets metabolized immediately or does not have much of an impact on target receptors (sometimes affecting other parts of the body that the other drugs would have had less effects on).
monopoly a shit

Surprised kikes aren't trying to sue for royalties every time someone lights a fire.

They would if they could, re: Monsanto.

Copyright is the egregious kike pushed one. 75 years after the death of the creator. Totally absurd.

No. Patents protect a specific implementation of an idea, not the idea itself.

No, copyright is infinite. Nothing will ever fall out of copyright ever again.

That sentence has absolutely no meaning. What the fuck are you rambling about?

Are you illiterate?

if you take a patented invention and through ingenious R&D you manage to make something better, ie something that has aditional functions or less drawbacks, you can patent that and not be constrained by the rights of the former patent

Patents and copyright are retarded and should be abolished. Especially on digital content- a series of 1's and 0's that can be instantly and perfectly duplicated does not have any monetary value unless it's some very exclusive and sought after information.
They don't, unless they write shitty pop music

Artists make a living by either performing (most music) or selling works (most amateurs) or getting someone to sponsor them (professionals).
Anything else is just the industry, ie label owners, not artists themselves making money.

So whenever someone brings up music, ask them, why can't they perform?

Summary: Abolish. Keep trademark law, keep property law, reduce right of copy, remove right of patent. Cast aside 10 million rent seeking patent law lawyers, their associated make work bureaucratic counter parts, and let hand the remnants over to designated centers for the Library of Congress across the States.

Comment: Patent used to work well with mechanical engineering, basic non-integrated electronics, and materials fabrication. Past this, it has never worked, and resulted in unsustainable misallocation of manpower. Recent attempts to tie to journals and publishing are simply more tax, fail even harder, and have not been adopted by sources (they have by merchants, no surprise). Not likely to be recoverable in this globalized era. Not likely to be recoverable in the Elsevier monolith era. Not likely to be recoverable in the Infinite University Student Slave era (Google was the exception successful note, not the rule). Factories, infrastructure, and parts networks are already overseas. Companies don't release, for good reason. Interface and services proliferation have largely taken over. The individual, without a standing law firm, specialized industry parts inspector, a loyal mega bank (cia), and replica of those three in each active overseas area of trade, will fail.

Trend: Services, Servers, Rent contracts, and Sealed trade partner networks. Open society programs, and all law based on the frame of mind presumption thereof, will continue to be source depleted. Your Bank, your CIA, your Patent Office, your Law Firm, and your Industrial Distribution partner were staffed by (((einstein))) then, and much worse since then.

Guidance: There is no help coming. Do not release under any.

I've considered this a bit, and here's something I think would make technology easier to access, while still encouraging innovation and having research pay for itself
I guess you could call it a "patent tax".

So you create a product, and don't want to worry about if any part of it is patented. So you pay a flat fee (say,13%) to the patent office of your profit and are now immune from any legal repercussions involving any patents on that particular product. This lets you have a good time doing business and not having to worry about (((lawyers))) coming around with nasty letters and their hands out for money.

The fee collected by the patent office, will be split equally among patent holders who correctly identify that product as using their patent during a certain amount of time. The patent office takes a cut needed to maintain itself.

That business can also get the fee reduced, if they correctly identify whose patents they are using, making it easier for the holders to get their share.

A business does not have to pay the patent tax on a product if they are not using any patents. Though they are vulnerable to lawsuits as usual if they are.
Patent holders can still make agreements with others as usual, though obviously they couldn't truly be exclusive anymore. Just at a better price than others.


There's probably downsides, but I honestly think this would be better than we have now. Fuck that epipen bitch.

Read better. is correct. A solution can be patented. Math cannot.

Though to be clear, it doesn't matter much. Your comment is a perfect demonstration why it never worked well then, and hasn't worked at all for decades.

Obviously I'm no expert on copyright/patent law. I think that the concept should exist; it's just that it's been abused to hell and back.

What are we at now? Like 70 years after the creator's death, and that keeps getting pushed further and further back so that Disney never to let Mickey become public domain? Essentially, it's illegal to make a copyright law that is indefinite, so instead they effectively get it indefinitely by continuously expanding the duration. What a load of fucking horseshit. Creators should have the right to the IPs they create, but that's just taking it way too fucking far.

There are industries where patents are definitely needed. Pharma, give them shit all you want, needs the 15 year exclusivity from the FDA to make research viable at all. And keep in mind that the 15 year mark is from time of first patent of the molecule, and that there are still years and years of work before that drug hits the market. So in reality, it's really not that long. There are a fuckton of problems in Pharma and healthcare in general, but patents really aren't one of them.

The obvious is that that would be a terrible idea, which is made worse by you not having a fabricator, a lithographic supplies network, and no means to implement semiconductor production. We used to have hardware magazines, in which solutions would get published. These left in the 90s, the the factories, due to Apple, and Apple was praised for it (then and now).

You would not be the beneficiary of that game. You have not been the beneficiary of that game. Your solution is not likely to change this result, as you concept of law has the idea of magic in it. Law imposes work (compulsion) and rewards chosen (tax rebate). You just taxed yourself by compulsion (the worst and most expensive tax), negated your profit margins, and ensured that your fees will rise in the future (why wouldn't the currency collectors come back, you just paid them to collect from you).

Please think better, discard all notions of what you think law is, and try again anew.

I think patents should exist but patent trolls sure as hell shouldn't. Patents need more definition that they should only be held and valid by those using them. Also patents need to be granted less often too much dumb patents like design patents and crapple patenting fucking rectangles.

Hitleriously ironic given (((Disney)))'s love of robbing from the public domain.

If you believe in the "free market" you shouldn't be defending patents as they add a pussy safety net for businesses/individuals when it should just be initial profit and that's all, no protections, free for all as soon as competitors can match you.
But yes they should be abolished as they hinder the progress of humanity itself and lower the quality of life by preventing utilization of known advancements of useful knowledge that everyone should be able to include in their products or ideas.
Good example would be something like magsafe, that fuck huge companies like apple keep other companies from using (aside from China which doesn't give a fuck and creates inferior knockoffs) which would simply improve every piece of tech with a cable.
Though there are similar examples of this for just about everything including medical patents, devices, medicines etc…
Patents should only acknowledge the creator of an idea on record and provide no further recourse of any kind beyond that (watch as patents stop being filed at that point)
They're largely used by patent trolls and lawyers, where some fat fuck in basement could be sitting on a life saving piece of tech that can eventually be found by others but is being held hostage, waiting or hoping that someone will put themselves in a position to sue or demand a huge payout for.

The Disney Company is an aesop for how easy it is for something to be subverted by kikes.

Disney was anti-semitic (the kikes will never stop kvetching about this fact). He didn't like them because he wanted to make wholesome content for children largely steeped in European tradition. He knew about the kikes' perversions and didn't want any of their degenerate shit in his company, so he kept them out.

Well, that was all and good until he died. I guess at some point, his family and/or board of directors forgot about the reasons for his "anti-semitism", and they relaxed on this. So what happens is Moishe weasels his way onto the board. Then Moishe convinces the board that his friend Shlomo should be promoted and eventually reach the board too. Then Moishe and Shlomo both advocate for Shmuel to be put on the board. Eventually the board becomes thoroughly jew controlled in this way, by just letting ANY of them slip in and pull a fast one. There's no defense for this unless you're actively aware of how jews operate. This is the way that a company that started off explicitly anti-semitic ends up becoming King Kike, LTD.

Again, magic. "Might be nice if [Magic]" – I agree with the 'then' part, just not the 'if'. Show me an 'if' that exists first.

–Who– will sit there and perform that validation inspection? –Who– sits there now? –Who– has sat there, and aren't they the reason why shit hasn't worked?

The Patent Office is just a business like any other; it must draw on people willing to work. Will you sit there? Have you sat there? What magical check and balance will you create next to ensure your definition is met, your valid is met, and your access is met? Journals? Have you been paying attention to journals? Do you read them? Have you ever tried to read a patent, and implement it and its fees? What is your stake anyway; What solutions of yours are you holding back from release and distribution because of crapple rectangle access?

If no other reason, your comment is again more proof that right of patent can only be abolished. Send all those lawyers, clerks, and agents back to the farms or into insurance companies.

Patents don't work like you think they do. Patents are generally region specific and there are a lot of retarded patent laws in place in every country. Let's say I get a patent of a device that is hypothetically 99.999999% efficient (lol, whatever). So I have the patent, but nobody wants to fund it because they are not sure of my math or maybe I am an autist who sucks at talking to people. Let's say I live in the EU so that's where I filed my patent. Okay, so now some american faggot who was an internship with my research team starts being buddy buddy with members of my research team. Oopsie, suddenly info gets leaked and the guy has all the info he needs to recreate my invention. Now he's a pretty good non-autist and he gets investors like flies all over his project. He files a patent in the US independently of my EU patent and now he's getting rich off my idea. You'll ask "Oh, but what if you filed the patent in the US too, hm?" Yeah, I could do that. It would cost me tens of thousands of dollars in hiring overseas lawyers and paying them monthly as they go through courts and approval committees to get my patent approved. And then guess what. What happens if said american faggot violates my patent even though I filed it in the US too? Well now I have to defend it. Legally. If I don't do that because of lack of funds or whatever my patent is literally null and void in the US. Patents are shit and they are just means to sue by large companies. Small researchers will never successfully defend their patent against large company violations or maybe even any violation if it's across seas. Still, even if you did do all that, there is a high chance that some chinks will just reverse engineer your shit and sell it for like quarter the price if it's worth it. Patents are like niggers in affirmative action. You think they work, but they really don't.

For a moment I read that as 'should parents be abolished' and was quite intrigued.

Get rid of software patents. US internet innovation dropped off in the mid 2000's because patent trolling got huge.

lets just get rid off it
it's too much shit
ideas are not objects that can be owned
though there is some reason behind the idea of providing a state granted monopoly to inventors to subsidize them at the cost of copycats and the general consumer.
but fuck it, it's too much trouble
just junk it
if you can't make money of your invention then dont bother inventing it unless done for non financial reasons

Patents are fine, it's hard to even define the trolls. It's the legal system establishment setup around patents which is the problem. Essentially the legal system is the kosher tax on food and more and more it becomes a bigger part of everyday peoples' lives.

Break the legal system being just Jews acting like they care about your case but really have already decided how its going to work in their Synagogue and we can talk patents, contracts and laws.

This is the normal: (unironically pro Apple, the company gutting the middle class and a hero for it)

This is the second most normal, hidden from direct view, but nearly omnipresent. Bain capital, and China et al, good luck stopping it. No seriously, when it's cheaper to infringe, you infringe, period. Can't make it here, can't make it overseas, and if somehow you do the former anyway, this will still happen. With inferior materials, builds, and everything to boot. Chinks and Pakis.

This is some guy thinking it still matters. Patent is a property right. But much to his chagrin it is also an -exclusive- property right, and that exclusivity clause must be enforced world wide. Good luck with that one. Again, see china for hive fuck, see bain for legal fuck, see all the hopefuls encouraged into the grinders by cuck fucks, and see apple for the king of it all.

As an added bonus, see this guy: Probably like of some of the posters here, who once upon a time, thought that they could simply add more law, more review, more evaluation, more validity check nonsense. Utterly ignorant of what that actually means, and still come back to advocate for it yet again.

So, just in case some miss whats apparently prompting this fishing expedition, the PTO (Patent and Trademark Office, of the Executive), is up for filling.

The current status quo, is a selective double/tripple/endless jeopardy for those who are not big software nor international companies. And a nice can't-miss choose your own reviewer if you are. Surely, another review board, another fee, another law, and another quasi court will fix everything. And it will, via wintering the entire USA.

The only ways out of this loop are either straight in (winter, more law, more daycare, more people, more shekels). Or straight out (abolish, iterative slashing of the biggest money earning process without adding on any new ads). Since this is another Clinton-Bush-Obama trifecta Central Bank levitation scheme anyway, the advice to all those on the ground is what was given earlier: Silent running, close trade networks, publish nothing.

Don't have a contract with me? Don't tell me what I can do with my property. A few other things that need to go:

In an ideal world, no. they should just be reduced to a minimum. 5yrs would be plenty, and it should be more limited in what they cover. Same with copyrights. But if the options are only to abolish or keep as is, then abolish.

The problem is doctors are leaned on by the pharma lobbies to always push newer medicines on patients even if they're less effective or more dangerous. Look at newer diabetes medication that makes patients piss out sugar for an example. Traditional European herbal medicine is better in many regards.

cure for cancer: 20 year patent
pop music song: life of the author plus 70 years
you can see why there's no cure for cancer, everyone wants the revenue from the hit pop song.

Patent law is so complicit.

the modern aeroplane is good example.
Who do you think invented it?
Wright brothers? wrong.
when was the last time you saw an aeroplane using wing warping controlled by a guy lying prone sliding from side to side?
Most of the Modern aeroplane was invented by an obscure eccentric New Zealand inventor called Richard Pearce. Once it was realized he effectively held proir art for the joy stick, variable pitch propeller, aerolon, tricycle under carriage, air cooled engine…

the rest of the industry decided that was not fair for them and they just decided it was a free for all.

Pearce was locked in a an insane asylum and died 2 years later, how convenient.

its worth pointing out that Pearce's first flight was prior to the Wright brothers and he used a significantly more powerful and heavier engine and achieved significant altitude and distance (350 yards), where as the wright brothers first effort could really be called a ground effect machine flying very close to the ground.

ctie.monash.edu.au/hargrave/pearse1.html

The wright brothers wrote everything down and sought publicity, but their machine was a technological dead end, where as Pearce's machine design was echoed in the aeroplanes of the first world war and the microlight craze of the 1980's

sorry burgers you got second prize, but at least you now got the truth.

have a look at the PC operating system. Gary Killdall and CP/M was the original patent but Microsoft and IBM stole it form him despite that fact it was copyrighted.

At he time of the theft CP/M was the market leader have 90% market share of the market having 450,000 installs in the rapidly expanding microcomputer market.

They called it DOS and it was almost identical in appearance and function to CP/M. The case was finally settled in 1999 for just $300M whereas MS had made billions from their theft.

Of course Gary Kildall (or the DRI shareholders) never saw a cent of this money, Gary was killed in 1994 to make sure he would not get a slice of the next big thing, the internet.

At the time of his death Gary was working on a smart phone with a touch screen that could connect to the internet wirelessly and a home router that had wireless connection technology.
so as usual patents only count when (((they))) own them.

The only real answer is to kill the jews.

Pharmaceuticals and medical technology are not as big of an issue now. They are hitting a point of diminishing returns where new drugs are only marginally more effective than older ones. In fact, hospitals now use trials as a way to reduce their own risks in treating patients, not really as a way to treat them more effectively. Patients sign away their rights with trials, and it is difficult to prove whether a trial treatment or the hospital is at fault when something goes wrong.

I've read white papers that have shown only a 5% improvement in effectiveness for trails done over the year 2000. There were huge medical advancements in the 20th century. Now, it moves at a snails pace.

That was curbed to an extent in the US. Software patents now need to be described in terms of a machine rather than a software process. Patent trolls also have a harder time since prior art only counts for up to a year before the first filing. Then, not at all.

Patent-lovers keep saying this but have yet to present any evidence that it's true.

Wouldn't Kikes just steal everything then? (even know they already do)

Copyright is an inherent violation of anti-trust principles.

they dont tho