Non-IT News Thread
-
@pmoncho said in Non-IT News Thread:
@scottalanmiller said in Non-IT News Thread:
@pmoncho said in Non-IT News Thread:
Putting a few billion dollars and many years into development of a product only to have it abused by another in one month is not a good thing.
There is already protection for that, though. No need for patents.
I am missing something here. What protection is there. Based on what I know, drugs get a patent just like everything else.
They do, andthat's evil, like any other patent (but worse, because it's holding people's lives for extortion.) But conceptually it's all evil.
-
@scottalanmiller said in Non-IT News Thread:
@Dashrender said in Non-IT News Thread:
@scottalanmiller said in Non-IT News Thread:
@pmoncho said in Non-IT News Thread:
As for Patents, those are a form of government control and a good one. It its not without its issue though.
I'm not a believer in patents. There's some sound idea behind it.... if you invent something you should have some advantage. But you already have an advantage, making it a monopoly hurts consumers. Patents work against capitalism and free markets and all traditional systems. The idea that "writing something down first" makes it yours is a problem. Once in a while, we can justify it by example, but rarely. There is hardly a patented item ever made that I think worked out. The idea of patents has nothing to do with invention, but exists to make it essentially impossible for individuals and small companies to compete and to shift money to big companies and lawyers.
If the story behind the intermittent windshield wiper is true, then your comments aren't completely right, but generally, yeah I agree, they are a way to keep the little man down, especially when you make patents on things you aren't actually making...
I have no idea what you mean.
The story as I recall it - random guy invented the intermittent windshield wiper tech, it was non trivial to people who work in the field - he got a patent on it... then looked for manufacturers to sell it to - for whatever reason, he didn't want to sell the patent, or ____ it, he wanted to manufacture the windshield wipers himself and sell them to auto makers...
long story short - he was working with an auto maker, they stole his information and manufactured themselves, cutting him out - he sued them, and years later won - the auto maker had to stop making them, and he was able to open a shop making and selling them to automakers... -
@scottalanmiller said in Non-IT News Thread:
@Dashrender said in Non-IT News Thread:
@scottalanmiller said in Non-IT News Thread:
@pmoncho said in Non-IT News Thread:
Putting a few billion dollars and many years into development of a product only to have it abused by another in one month is not a good thing.
There is already protection for that, though. No need for patents.
What is that protection?
Trade secrets.
Reverse engineering??
-
If a big pharma (which I don't believe should exist in the first place) makes a new drug through tons of research (meaning, big money invested) and wants to make loads of money off of that (meaning keeping it out of the hands of people who need it in order to make money) then they already have the research (which is illegal to steal) and the knowledge of how to make it (which is illegal to steal) and a long lead on the process. They get a lot of time in which they are the only ones in the market under existing non-patent protections. In order to patent a drug, they have to trade in their trade secrets in order to file the patent.
Existing protections, which are good, get eliminated and new ones, that are evil, get added. Using the government to create opportunity where none existed. It's communism at the extreme - the capitalistic free market isn't seen as desirable because the playing field is too level, so the government steps in, selects a benefactor, and holds the public for ransom till they get their money. Planned economy as opposed to free market. I believe heavily in capitalism and you can't have patents with capitalism, they are directly opposed to each other.
Not to knock communism, it has its points, but generally, it sounds good on paper but demotivates investors and cripples the economy and in practice just moves money from the poorest to the richest.
-
@scottalanmiller said in Non-IT News Thread:
@Dashrender said in Non-IT News Thread:
@scottalanmiller said in Non-IT News Thread:
@pmoncho said in Non-IT News Thread:
Putting a few billion dollars and many years into development of a product only to have it abused by another in one month is not a good thing.
There is already protection for that, though. No need for patents.
What is that protection?
Trade secrets.
Trade secrets is just a form of short term internal patent with the ability to create high short term pricing. The company would just calculate how long it would take for another to reverse engineer their product and add that to the intial cost. Thus, drug A will be three times the amount vs being able to have a 10 year patent. (just what I think would happen)
-
@Dashrender said in Non-IT News Thread:
@scottalanmiller said in Non-IT News Thread:
@Dashrender said in Non-IT News Thread:
@scottalanmiller said in Non-IT News Thread:
@pmoncho said in Non-IT News Thread:
Putting a few billion dollars and many years into development of a product only to have it abused by another in one month is not a good thing.
There is already protection for that, though. No need for patents.
What is that protection?
Trade secrets.
Reverse engineering??
Right. Reverse engineering is good. Great. Incredible. And ANYTHING that discourages it is bad, for everyone.
-
@Dashrender said in Non-IT News Thread:
@scottalanmiller said in Non-IT News Thread:
@Dashrender said in Non-IT News Thread:
@scottalanmiller said in Non-IT News Thread:
@pmoncho said in Non-IT News Thread:
As for Patents, those are a form of government control and a good one. It its not without its issue though.
I'm not a believer in patents. There's some sound idea behind it.... if you invent something you should have some advantage. But you already have an advantage, making it a monopoly hurts consumers. Patents work against capitalism and free markets and all traditional systems. The idea that "writing something down first" makes it yours is a problem. Once in a while, we can justify it by example, but rarely. There is hardly a patented item ever made that I think worked out. The idea of patents has nothing to do with invention, but exists to make it essentially impossible for individuals and small companies to compete and to shift money to big companies and lawyers.
If the story behind the intermittent windshield wiper is true, then your comments aren't completely right, but generally, yeah I agree, they are a way to keep the little man down, especially when you make patents on things you aren't actually making...
I have no idea what you mean.
The story as I recall it - random guy invented the intermittent windshield wiper tech, it was non trivial to people who work in the field - he got a patent on it... then looked for manufacturers to sell it to - for whatever reason, he didn't want to sell the patent, or ____ it, he wanted to manufacture the windshield wipers himself and sell them to auto makers...
long story short - he was working with an auto maker, they stole his information and manufactured themselves, cutting him out - he sued them, and years later won - the auto maker had to stop making them, and he was able to open a shop making and selling them to automakers...Right, the issue there being theft. This tells us nothing about the value of patents. They can't just steal a trade secret, thanks to NDAs.
-
@pmoncho said in Non-IT News Thread:
@scottalanmiller said in Non-IT News Thread:
@Dashrender said in Non-IT News Thread:
@scottalanmiller said in Non-IT News Thread:
@pmoncho said in Non-IT News Thread:
Putting a few billion dollars and many years into development of a product only to have it abused by another in one month is not a good thing.
There is already protection for that, though. No need for patents.
What is that protection?
Trade secrets.
Trade secrets is just a form of short term internal patent with the ability to create high short term pricing. The company would just calculate how long it would take for another to reverse engineer their product and add that to the intial cost. Thus, drug A will be three times the amount vs being able to have a 10 year patent. (just what I think would happen)
No, it's quite different. They are quite the opposite. One is "figure things out and make money on your knowledge" the other is "file legal paperwork and make money based on the legal system and government"
-
@scottalanmiller said in Non-IT News Thread:
@Dashrender said in Non-IT News Thread:
@scottalanmiller said in Non-IT News Thread:
@Dashrender said in Non-IT News Thread:
@scottalanmiller said in Non-IT News Thread:
@pmoncho said in Non-IT News Thread:
Putting a few billion dollars and many years into development of a product only to have it abused by another in one month is not a good thing.
There is already protection for that, though. No need for patents.
What is that protection?
Trade secrets.
Reverse engineering??
Right. Reverse engineering is good. Great. Incredible. And ANYTHING that discourages it is bad, for everyone.
That's why trade secrets are pointless - you invent something, someone else buys it, reverse engineers, then they make it and sell it for less, and you're out of business... so - there are no protections if you don't have a patent.
Sadly, driving to the bottom dollar is often when drives many of these businesses to zero.
-
@scottalanmiller said in Non-IT News Thread:
@pmoncho said in Non-IT News Thread:
@scottalanmiller said in Non-IT News Thread:
@Dashrender said in Non-IT News Thread:
@scottalanmiller said in Non-IT News Thread:
@pmoncho said in Non-IT News Thread:
Putting a few billion dollars and many years into development of a product only to have it abused by another in one month is not a good thing.
There is already protection for that, though. No need for patents.
What is that protection?
Trade secrets.
Trade secrets is just a form of short term internal patent with the ability to create high short term pricing. The company would just calculate how long it would take for another to reverse engineer their product and add that to the intial cost. Thus, drug A will be three times the amount vs being able to have a 10 year patent. (just what I think would happen)
No, it's quite different. They are quite the opposite. One is "figure things out and make money on your knowledge" the other is "file legal paperwork and make money based on the legal system and government"
In the end, Product A's price will include the reverse engineering fee until Product B is created and sold. Doesn't matter if it is held as a trade secret within the company or the entire schematic laid out on paper for all to see.
If a protected time period doesn't exist, initial pricing will be three to five times more than it is already. Product A will be duplicated and Company A has to get on the ball for the next drug using the extra Billions it received from Product A's initial HUGE price.
-
@Dashrender said in Non-IT News Thread:
That's why trade secrets are pointless - you invent something, someone else buys it, reverse engineers, then they make it and sell it for less, and you're out of business... so - there are no protections if you don't have a patent.
You act like it is magic. A trade secret is VERY hard to reverse engineer if it has any value. It takes time and money. It's the opposite of pointless. If something is easy to reverse engineer, you had no business patenting it.
There is every protection.
-
@pmoncho said in Non-IT News Thread:
If a protected time period doesn't exist, initial pricing will be three to five times more than it is already.
No, there's no reason for that. Trade secrets are effective and there is a reason TRUE innovation isn't patented today - because patents don't have international protection (and often not domestic protection), but trade secrets do.
Patents, in reality, provide hardly any protection in the modern world. Trade secrets, however, often prove effective.
-
A big problem with patents is that they primarily punish the domestic market.
Take US Pharma A. They make a new drug, and file a patent. Pharma B put billions into making the same drug, but filed one day later even though they invented it first, but the USPS arrived one day later because they were in a more rural area or a most distant state. Patents punish "competitive research" awarding 100% of the awards to one company (sometimes picked arbitrarily) and nothing to another who may have done more work (and easily had their work stolen from them - look at the light bulb.)
Now Pharma A gets rich by holding the US market hostage. Both by having total price control over the drug and any similar (even if better) drugs that they didn't design while Pharma B who may have invested a better drug can do nothing. Research is crippled, and consumers are extorted.
Now Pharma C, being a non-US company, can simply grab the patents that Pharma A used to steal from Pharma B and the American public, and make the drug with no research or effort because all details had to be public for the patent. Now this drug is super cheap to most of the world, but not the tax payers who are being extorted for it.
-
No matter how you spin it, free markets just make sense and attempts at government controlled economies always result in the domestic market suffering. Not just the citizens, but innovation, too. Whether it is US pharmas or Soviet iron smelting, it's the same basic principles.
-
@scottalanmiller said in Non-IT News Thread:
A big problem with patents is that they primarily punish the domestic market.
Take US Pharma A. They make a new drug, and file a patent. Pharma B put billions into making the same drug, but filed one day later even though they invented it first, but the USPS arrived one day later because they were in a more rural area or a most distant state. Patents punish "competitive research" awarding 100% of the awards to one company (sometimes picked arbitrarily) and nothing to another who may have done more work (and easily had their work stolen from them - look at the light bulb.)
Now Pharma A gets rich by holding the US market hostage. Both by having total price control over the drug and any similar (even if better) drugs that they didn't design while Pharma B who may have invested a better drug can do nothing. Research is crippled, and consumers are extorted.
Now Pharma C, being a non-US company, can simply grab the patents that Pharma A used to steal from Pharma B and the American public, and make the drug with no research or effort because all details had to be public for the patent. Now this drug is super cheap to most of the world, but not the tax payers who are being extorted for it.
Of course there's no spin here.
If there is no protection on huge investments like this - then I wonder how many would be willing to invest billions in the first place, I really would expect it to go down a lot.
As for reverse engineering the meds, I have absolutely no clue how easy/hard it is, but I tend to side with @pmoncho that it wouldn't be THAT long before they would be knocked off as it were, the cost of reverse engineering it is likely many fold less than original research, and the value is potentially HUGE.
Now granted, the rest of the world can knock it off, but since they hold the US over a barrel, they know they'll make their money back and tidy profits on top in most cases, so they - meh the theft.
-
@Dashrender said in Non-IT News Thread:
If there is no protection on huge investments like this - then I wonder how many would be willing to invest billions in the first place, I really would expect it to go down a lot.
Right, there is little incentive. But luckily, there is huge protection. So this doesn't apply in the real world.
-
@Dashrender said in Non-IT News Thread:
As for reverse engineering the meds, I have absolutely no clue how easy/hard it is, but I tend to side with @pmoncho that it wouldn't be THAT long before they would be knocked off as it were, the cost of reverse engineering it is likely many fold less than original research, and the value is potentially HUGE.
Maybe, sometimes. But by what logic should someone get a monopoly and keep prices high for discovering something first that is easy to replicate? That's crazy. They already have an advantage to being first, a huge one. Why should they get more? What kind of crazy "big companies deserve our money to worship them for being big" logic is that?
The idea that research would go away is absurd. That makes absolutely zero sense.
-
@Dashrender said in Non-IT News Thread:
Now granted, the rest of the world can knock it off, but since they hold the US over a barrel, they know they'll make their money back and tidy profits on top in most cases, so they - meh the theft.
Right, so since they can guarantee that they can rape the US market, they are okay not being competitive overall.
So you see my problem. One set of citizens suffer at the hands of the lack of innovation, just so that we can worship big pharma as if we "owe" them something.
-
@Dashrender said in Non-IT News Thread:
the cost of reverse engineering it is likely many fold less than original research, and the value is potentially HUGE.
It's not. The potential value is tiny. And the first company always has the ability to lower the cost of manufacturing to the point where there is no value in reverse engineering. Reverse engineering is expensive and only has value under one situation: where the product isn't available on the market currently at a reasonable cost.
Reverse engineering only threatens a company that is non-competitive up front, and refuses to become competitive later. Any company that is believed to be willing to lower their cost when a competitor approaches the market has no fear of competition unless that competition has created a competitive advantage that they can't replicate themselves....
And if that one condition is true, then we have proven why patents cripple competition by not only making the product not have to compete on a free market playing field, but taking away all incentive to innovate around that product.
Every argument "for" patents, is actually proof of any you can't have them make sense.
-
Maybe I just think capitalism is too logical to pass up. But the idea that you have a free market, an even playing field, and people are rewarded for doing a good job, not for bribing government officials, and keeping the government's hands out from manipulating the market just makes so much sense. I can't understand a desire for an anti-capitalist system in today's world when we've seen centuries of capitalism working and communism failing (at least on an economic basis.) Even countries with communist governments (China, Nica, etc.) have adopted vastly more capitalistic economic structures than the US because lessons have been learned that nothing else works anywhere nearly as good as free markets.
There's just no way to plan an economy as well as evolution already does it. Picking and choosing who wins is the ultimate strategy to undermine innovation.
