Life on Earth is hard. It is so because of scarcity. Good and services are scarce because there is not enough for everyone to have as much as they want without giving up something else they also want. Economists say that goods and services are scarce because land, labor, and capital --- resources --- are scarce. But the idea of scarcity is even more subtle than the rarity of resources. Time and space alone make scarcity unavoidable. Two objects that possess mass cannot occupy the same space at the same time, which makes particular spaces scarce. And of course, humans have finite lives, which makes time scarce for humans, even if physical resources were not rare.
The best humans can do is mitigate scarcity. As it happens, humans have been spectacularly successful mitigating scarcity over the most recent 250 years of human existence on Earth. We have been so spectacularly successful by creating ever advancing technologies that allow us to produce more goods and services with fewer scarce resources. The previous 100,000 - 200,000 years before the most recent 250 were truly horrible for humans, with almost everyone living hand to mouth in extreme poverty, spending most waking hours trying to avoid death by starvation, if some other malady did not take their lives sooner.
In a world of scarcity, it is unimaginable (to me at least) that humans would ever abide creating artificial scarcity. And yet, patents and intellectual property rights do exactly that.
As simple matter of fact, no one has ever demonstrated with credible evidence or demonstration of any kind that innovation is or ever has been curtailed in the absence of patents and so-called "intellectual property." The notion that limiting the dispersion of information to incentivize innovation is spurious, undemonstrated, and I claim simply false. In fact, we have credible evidence to the contrary.
Some economists argued in the past that privately built light houses would not happen, due to what is called the "free-rider' problem. Hence, government would have to build lighthouses, which it is argued government should do, for the "public good." And of course, governments should tax everyone to do so, to maximize the public good. Only problem is this: private individuals did in fact build lighthouses. Why? It's really easy to understand why. Ship owners did not want their own ships to founder on the rocks and shoals, and they did not care that there would be free riders on whit.
In the same way, Jonas Salk invented a vaccine for polio, never seeking or receiving a patent. Yes, due to sever government regulation, developing new life-saving and beneficial drugs is artificially expensive. And yet, people will develop them without patents. How do we know? Because they do. The basic research for new drugs is not conducted by big pharma, for the most part. The research is conducted by scientists who will continue doing so regardless of whether the drug earns them one thin dime, just as Jonas Salk did.
Is it not unreasonable to simply accept the claims of would be patent holders and others (people who will never come close to innovating anything) and all others who claim patents and intellectual property rights are necessary to incentivize innovation? We have ample evidence that innovators will innovate regardless of patents or intellectual property rights.
Putting aside this argument, I also want to point out that patents and intellectual property rights remove the rights of millions of others to use their own resources however they choose. Patents and intellectual property rights, if they are to be limiting at all, must be enforced with force and threats of force. Using force and threat of force to compel others is flatly immoral. But this is but a side effect. The real issue with patents and intellectual property rights is the afore noted fact: they create artificial scarcity for the benefit of the vanishingly small few, and they impose costs on the super majority of other humans.
How in the world is it possible that so many human think that patents and intellectual property rights are a good idea --- especially in the face of no credible evidence that demonstrates the claims of supporters of patents and intellectual property rights?
Some benefit to patents in blatent cases. Blue Origin tried to patent landing a rocket on a barge when SpaceX began to test this capability. Patent application was vague about technical details which patent office chose to challenge. Essential BO said they would have to talk to SpaceX for technical details... Patent application dismissed.
I have three trade secrets which are innovations that aren't filed as parents. That's how you know they're being used because, like the coca cola recipe, I can't copy what I can't see and a patent is published.
I have mixed feelings on IP. On one hand I’ve seen the abuses you reference. On the other I have a hard time understanding why anyone at all should have had the rights to immediately publish the Harry Potter books right after JK Rowling wrote them. The arguments for patent IP certainly apply to copyright.
Logically I would want to distinguish between stealing your work and independently creating the same thing. My nibbling around the edges approach would be to tighten the definitions of what is patentable getting rid of some of these vague and elastic definitions, and allow for multiple patent holders. If I can prove I was working on the same exact thing you were, and you just beat me to the patent office I should have the same rights to my work that you do.
I find the argument that lack of scarcity implies no harm less persuasive. If you were to take a hypothetical of someone tinkering in their garage for 40 years to develop a cancer cure that is immediately snapped up by Pfizer and copied resulting in no profit for the inventor, but billions for Pfizer most people would not claim nobody was harmed.
Life on Earth is hard. It is so because of scarcity. Good and services are scarce because there is not enough for everyone to have as much as they want without giving up something else they also want. Economists say that goods and services are scarce because land, labor, and capital --- resources --- are scarce. But the idea of scarcity is even more subtle than the rarity of resources. Time and space alone make scarcity unavoidable. Two objects that possess mass cannot occupy the same space at the same time, which makes particular spaces scarce. And of course, humans have finite lives, which makes time scarce for humans, even if physical resources were not rare.
The best humans can do is mitigate scarcity. As it happens, humans have been spectacularly successful mitigating scarcity over the most recent 250 years of human existence on Earth. We have been so spectacularly successful by creating ever advancing technologies that allow us to produce more goods and services with fewer scarce resources. The previous 100,000 - 200,000 years before the most recent 250 were truly horrible for humans, with almost everyone living hand to mouth in extreme poverty, spending most waking hours trying to avoid death by starvation, if some other malady did not take their lives sooner.
In a world of scarcity, it is unimaginable (to me at least) that humans would ever abide creating artificial scarcity. And yet, patents and intellectual property rights do exactly that.
As simple matter of fact, no one has ever demonstrated with credible evidence or demonstration of any kind that innovation is or ever has been curtailed in the absence of patents and so-called "intellectual property." The notion that limiting the dispersion of information to incentivize innovation is spurious, undemonstrated, and I claim simply false. In fact, we have credible evidence to the contrary.
Some economists argued in the past that privately built light houses would not happen, due to what is called the "free-rider' problem. Hence, government would have to build lighthouses, which it is argued government should do, for the "public good." And of course, governments should tax everyone to do so, to maximize the public good. Only problem is this: private individuals did in fact build lighthouses. Why? It's really easy to understand why. Ship owners did not want their own ships to founder on the rocks and shoals, and they did not care that there would be free riders on whit.
In the same way, Jonas Salk invented a vaccine for polio, never seeking or receiving a patent. Yes, due to sever government regulation, developing new life-saving and beneficial drugs is artificially expensive. And yet, people will develop them without patents. How do we know? Because they do. The basic research for new drugs is not conducted by big pharma, for the most part. The research is conducted by scientists who will continue doing so regardless of whether the drug earns them one thin dime, just as Jonas Salk did.
Is it not unreasonable to simply accept the claims of would be patent holders and others (people who will never come close to innovating anything) and all others who claim patents and intellectual property rights are necessary to incentivize innovation? We have ample evidence that innovators will innovate regardless of patents or intellectual property rights.
Putting aside this argument, I also want to point out that patents and intellectual property rights remove the rights of millions of others to use their own resources however they choose. Patents and intellectual property rights, if they are to be limiting at all, must be enforced with force and threats of force. Using force and threat of force to compel others is flatly immoral. But this is but a side effect. The real issue with patents and intellectual property rights is the afore noted fact: they create artificial scarcity for the benefit of the vanishingly small few, and they impose costs on the super majority of other humans.
How in the world is it possible that so many human think that patents and intellectual property rights are a good idea --- especially in the face of no credible evidence that demonstrates the claims of supporters of patents and intellectual property rights?
Tbf one thing that’s definitely not scarce are words in this comment 🤣.
Fair enough.
Some benefit to patents in blatent cases. Blue Origin tried to patent landing a rocket on a barge when SpaceX began to test this capability. Patent application was vague about technical details which patent office chose to challenge. Essential BO said they would have to talk to SpaceX for technical details... Patent application dismissed.
I have three trade secrets which are innovations that aren't filed as parents. That's how you know they're being used because, like the coca cola recipe, I can't copy what I can't see and a patent is published.
I have mixed feelings on IP. On one hand I’ve seen the abuses you reference. On the other I have a hard time understanding why anyone at all should have had the rights to immediately publish the Harry Potter books right after JK Rowling wrote them. The arguments for patent IP certainly apply to copyright.
Logically I would want to distinguish between stealing your work and independently creating the same thing. My nibbling around the edges approach would be to tighten the definitions of what is patentable getting rid of some of these vague and elastic definitions, and allow for multiple patent holders. If I can prove I was working on the same exact thing you were, and you just beat me to the patent office I should have the same rights to my work that you do.
I find the argument that lack of scarcity implies no harm less persuasive. If you were to take a hypothetical of someone tinkering in their garage for 40 years to develop a cancer cure that is immediately snapped up by Pfizer and copied resulting in no profit for the inventor, but billions for Pfizer most people would not claim nobody was harmed.