Coffeehouse Thread

68 posts

Forum Read Only

This forum has been made read only by the site admins. No new threads or comments can be added.

Job's vendetta to pull Galaxy S III from shelves?

Back to Forum: Coffeehouse
  • User profile image
    evildictait​or

    , Maddus Mattus wrote

    ...as cheap and as good as could be, no...

    ...patent[s do] not add value to the end product.

    ... So the end product is not as good as can be...

    The reason [drugs] are so expensive [is because of] legal battles big pharmaceuticals play out.

    [patents are] the reason you cant have small time operators.

    The costs [of patents] outweigh the risks.

    I'm saying that [patents] makes the product more expensive then it should have been

    [patents] prohibits competition

    [patents do] not drive innovation.

    Generic Forum Image

  • User profile image
    Maddus Mattus

    For instance, Android devices could be cheaper and of better quality if they didnt have to pay Microsoft. Same with drugs, if a pharmacutical doesnt have to pay lawyers, it can put the resources to better use, R&D for instance. Companies are constantly in search in improving their efficiency, meaning adding value for customers and reducing overhead costs, patents are a clearly overhead costs.

    The case of the S3 being pulled from the shelves is evidence of preventing competition. That competition should happen in the marketplace, not in the courts.

    That it prohibits innovation is clearly demonstrated by the fact that you have to do things different, not neccesairly better. Innovation is taking existing ideas and improving on them, patents prevent that.

    That patents do not add value to the end product is obvious, you can't do anything with them. They do present value to the patent holder for all the reasons mentoined above, but add value to the end product, no,..

  • User profile image
    evildictait​or

    Restating your opinions and pretending they are facts is not proof or evidence.

    , Maddus Mattus wrote

    Android devices could be cheaper and of better quality if they didnt have to pay Microsoft.

    Same with drugs, ... it can put the resources [into] ... R&D. 

    patents are ... clearly ... costs.

    The case of the S3 being pulled from the shelves is evidence of preventing competition.

    That it prohibits innovation is clearly demonstrated

    [patents prevent] taking existing ideas and improving on them.

    you can't do anything with [patents].

    [patents add no] value to the end product

    Generic Forum Image

  • User profile image
    Maddus Mattus

    , evildictait​or wrote

    Restating your opinions and pretending they are facts is not proof or evidence.

    Those are not opinions but basic economic and social concepts, no citation needed.

    Now, if you have any beef with any of the examples I've given, feel free to provide a counter argument.

  • User profile image
    GoddersUK

    , Maddus Mattus wrote

    For instance, Android devices could be cheaper and of better quality if they didnt have to pay Microsoft. Same with drugs, if a pharmacutical doesnt have to pay lawyers, it can put the resources to better use, R&D for instance. Companies are constantly in search in improving their efficiency, meaning adding value for customers and reducing overhead costs, patents are a clearly overhead costs.

    Sorry, I haven't read most of the preceding discussion so what I'm about to say may be completely irrelevant, but:

    If pharma companies (for instance) didn't have access to patents they could spend millions or billions (depending on currency and drug) bringing a drug to market - doing R&D, clinical trials, accounting for costs for potential drugs that never made it through - only to have the final product, the fruits of that investment, manufactured for next to nothing by generics manufacturers with no R&D overhead. No patents = No innovation.


    On a related note, I came accross this, which I think can be described as utter madness: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Business_method_patent

  • User profile image
    Maddus Mattus

    @GoddersUK:

    Costs of drug development are primairly driven by the need to adhere government regulations, not because of the R&D costs. With simple adjustments, whole new drugs can be created. Those costs are actually quite low compared to the administrative burden of bringing a drug to market.

    In light of this, government has to grant some form of protection. Otherwise, as you so rightly conclude, no new drugs would come to market. But to mark these innovations as a result of patents, is the world upside down.

    Lift the regulatory burden and you have no need for patents in the drug industry. Patents are anti business, dispite the fact that they are being marketed as pro business by businesses that own them.

  • User profile image
    JohnAskew

    , Maddus Mattus wrote

    @GoddersUK:

    Costs of drug development are primairly driven by the need to adhere government regulations, not because of the R&D costs. With simple adjustments, whole new drugs can be created. Those costs are actually quite low compared to the administrative burden of bringing a drug to market.

    In light of this, government has to grant some form of protection. Otherwise, as you so rightly conclude, no new drugs would come to market. But to mark these innovations as a result of patents, is the world upside down.

    Lift the regulatory burden and you have no need for patents in the drug industry. Patents are anti business, dispite the fact that they are being marketed as pro business by businesses that own them.

    You are an anarchist, then. Without trials and regulations, corporations can easily poison us in error. Now what? Blame whom? The consumer, according to your ankle deep philosophy.

    Government is good, not bad.

    Rule of Law is good, not bad.

    Anarchy is bad, not good.

  • User profile image
    evildictait​or

    , Maddus Mattus wrote

    Those are not opinions but basic economic and social concepts, no citation needed.

    If "patents are bad for the economy overall" was a basic economic and social concept, it would never have been introduced. 

    And if was a basic economic and social concept, it would be easy for you to cite them. For instance, the wikipedia article on patents would probably say something like "Patents are clearly bad for the economy - that's why no modern economy uses them.".

    Since the status quo is that "patents are good for the economy overall" (since we have them), you need to provide compelling evidence (with emphasis on both compelling and evidence) that society should mobilise to abolish patents because the benefits of an economy without patents clearly outweigh the downsides.

    Just stating that patents suck and saying completely unresearched ramblings at the level of "yeah, but it's, like totally obvious" doesn't suffice. You need to demonstrate that you understand why patents were introduced (so you don't make things worse by throwing away something with minor problems that was introduced to avoid bigger problems that you're ignoring) and that your alternative is better.

    As it is, you're just repeating the same tired old lines of "patents are bad", "government is bad", and calling for the abolition of a series of laws that are firmly built into the behaviours of the markets without actually bothering to decide whether the markets would be better or worse off without them based entirely on "it's, like, totally obvious dude" level of study.

  • User profile image
    davewill

    It seems that the two camps, over various threads, have a theme.  In one camp it is believed that the 2 parties involved in a dispute or conflict should make every effort to resolve that dispute or conflict among themselves before a 3rd party is brought into the mix.  In the other camp it appears that the 2 parties should immediately be involved with a 3rd party in the mix.  Barring an international Channel 9 sponspored indian leg wrestling match, how are we going to keep from derailing threads?

  • User profile image
    Maddus Mattus

    , JohnAskew wrote

    You are an anarchist, then. Without trials and regulations, corporations can easily poison us in error. Now what? Blame whom? The consumer, according to your ankle deep philosophy.

    I'm no anarchist, I'm pro army, police and courts of law.

    The market will weed the poisoners out. Just think of all the cheap newage cancer medication we would have at our disposal!

    Government is good, not bad.

    Rule of Law is good, not bad.

    Anarchy is bad, not good.

    Government, when in place to protect the freedom of it's citizens, is good. Government, when in place to protect the interest of wealthy corporations, is bad.

    For Rule of Law, replace government with rule of law in example above.

    There has never been a form of anarchy, humans have always huddled in communities, communities with people with the same set of values.

  • User profile image
    Maddus Mattus

    @davewill: excellent question and observation,..

    I believe it's at the hart of how you want to run a society and solve it's problems.

    When one posts things like this Apple v.s. Samsung, it's bound to end up into a discussion about the system.

    While I let myself get suckered into these discussions too often, I agree with you there. It helps me to really look deep into myself and look for solutions to these complex problems.

    Solution for me would be, just to limit the amount of replies.

  • User profile image
    Maddus Mattus

    @evildictaitor: These and numerous other court cases are not enough to change your mind?

    You do realize that all that money spent there is not spent on adding value to the economy? It just produces paperwork.

  • User profile image
    davewill

    , Maddus Mattus wrote

    @davewill: excellent question and observation,..

    *snip*

    When one posts things like this Apple v.s. Samsung, it's bound to end up into a discussion about the system.

    *snip*

    Fair enough.  The original subject matter definitely is in our realm of work whether we like it or not.

    Addendum: Although it would be cool to work out the triple elimination brackets (with unlimited wagers) for the indian leg wrestling. Smiley

  • User profile image
    evildictait​or

    , Maddus Mattus wrote

    @evildictaitor: These and numerous other court cases are not enough to change your mind?

    No. Because cherry picking individual patent lawsuits that got to court doesn't tell you whether patents in general are bad for the economy any more than looking at investment banks going bust in 2008 tells you that investing money is bad for the economy, or that looking at personal injury court cases allows you to conclude that ladders should be made illegal.

    You do realize that all that money spent there is not spent on adding value to the economy? It just produces paperwork.

    Well maybe we should close down the courts and scrap all laws - since obviously the entire legal system provides no benefit to society other than to produce paperwork.

    Or maybe you're ignoring the elephant in the room, which is that patents getting to court is an unfortunate consequence of research being tradeable in an open and free market, and that the benefit to society of that market existing dwarfs the cost of protecting it.

    For someone who claims to be all for the free market, demanding that existing free markets be closed down and that their products be treated as owned by society and having no tradeable value sure is a funny way of showing it.

  • User profile image
    Proton2

    Without patent protection, the very thing that Samsung or whoever is copying very well might not have even existed in the first place. Patents exist for the purpose of providing an incentive to create ideas. Patents have a limited exclusion lifetime. Many patents have and are going to expire sooner than they otherwise would have because of the effect of bringing ideas into the patent process sooner than they might have under less competitive conditions. So at least that's one good thing for those of us that might not have benefited directly or indirectly from the patent. We get the idea freed from the patent sooner than it otherwise would have been, and once patent free, its open to use by anybody for the rest of time, or until evildictator collects enough minions. Smiley

  • User profile image
    GoddersUK

    , Maddus Mattus wrote

    @GoddersUK:

    Costs of drug development are primairly driven by the need to adhere government regulations, not because of the R&D costs. With simple adjustments, whole new drugs can be created. Those costs are actually quite low compared to the administrative burden of bringing a drug to market.

    I've said it before and I'll say it again: Those regulations exist for very good reasons (related to both safety and efficacy). I also think you underestimate the amount of science involved in bringing a drug to market. First you have to understand the biochemistry of the disease, then you have to come up with a target molecule you think will work, then you have to figure out how to make the molecule, then you have to see if it works on a lab level (computer models/test tube reactions), then animals, then move into people where you have to move through many stages of clinical trials. You have to pay for all the drugs that never make it. Even if Pharma companies spent nothing on marketting and the minimum on lawyers and admin drug R&D would be neither cheap nor quick.

    In light of this, government has to grant some form of protection. Otherwise, as you so rightly conclude, no new drugs would come to market. But to mark these innovations as a result of patents, is the world upside down.

    Well what form of protection do you propose.

    I never said that the innovations were the result of the patents (of course the patents are the result of the innovations) BUT that the patents provide the motivation to get on with the innovation. A tree isn't the result of the fruit grown on it, but it is probably the reason why someone's growing the tree.

    Lift the regulatory burden and you have no need for patents in the drug industry.

    Without regulators we can't trust the pharma companies to be honest nor their products to be safe and effective. It would be like homeopathy, except that bad drugs could actually kill you - unlike small bottles of water.

    And you haven't answered the question where will the money to develop drugs come from? The only way we could eliminate patents in R&D intensive industries would be to nationalise them and have all R&D taxpayer funded... (then "stuff" would be cheaper but taxes would be higher... and you probably couldn't integrate such a system into the global realm of IP then (until the new world order comes into force and can make everyone do it Smiley), unless the government essentially owned the patents on everything and licensed them globally and they were only available free in your country).

     

    Patents are anti business, dispite the fact that they are being marketed as pro business by businesses that own them.

    Patents are designed to encourage business and individuals to release information, leading to the benefit of society. The bargain is simple - tell us how you do something; spend time and money inventing something useful and you can exclusively reap the benefits of that for a set period of time. They benefit society as a whole - and they're a much better method of doing business than their alternative (trade secrets).

    (I'm not saying that (certain aspects of) modern patent systems aren't anti-business or anti-society - they most certainly are. But the concept of a patent in general isn't.)

     

  • User profile image
    Maddus Mattus

    @evildictaitor: A free market, is free of coercion. And a patent is nothing more then a coercion.

    You are forcing others to pay for your idea, while they might have come up with the same idea by themselves.

    If you take away the patent, how much is the idea worth? Nothing.

    How much is a guy worth that comes up with ideas? He's priceless,..

  • User profile image
    Maddus Mattus

    @GoddersUK:

    Are you sure we are better off? Delaying the release of new drugs by decades? Drugs that can save lives today? Rejecting perfectly good drugs because they made a clerical error? Driving the costs of these drugs through the roof, just because there might be a few bad men? I hope you are sure, because I am not.

    I apologize if I misrepresented your argument,.

    I do not propose any form of protection. Like I've stated before, you can't copy everything, you only copy the succesfull ideas. And if these ideas are succesfull allready, fruits have allready been plucked. That's how you pay for R&D. Apple is a very good example, it made billions being innovative, it has stopped doing that and strated protecting it's marketshare. Would be interesting to see where they go from here.

    Regulation does not drive product safety, the market does. Market changed first, law followed.

    I agree with you on the concept of the patent, the idea is nice. The real world application not so, so I am against.

Conversation locked

This conversation has been locked by the site admins. No new comments can be made.