Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Chomsky on Intellectual Property

groups.google.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 133 posts

Re: Chomsky on Intellectual Property

#11

Post by entangld »

maxharris wrote: post #9
entangld wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

He's talking about research. You're talking about development. None of these things are exactly easy, but at least with development you're building toward something.

Where does one stop and the other begin? Much of what we call research vs. what we call development is simply an artifact that stems from the way science is funded today. However, science can't (and won't) always be funded by giant government bodies. (To say that it will assumes that the way things are can go on forever, but history shows that civilizations have lifespans just like everything else.)

Pharmaceutical R&D companies have become just development companies because they stop looking for new drugs and are simply repackaging and reformulating existing drugs (e.g. Claritin/Clarinex).

They're doing this because it costs too much to do research and development gives them quicker return on investment.

Re: Chomsky on Intellectual Property

#12

Post by DuncanIdaho »

davidw wrote: post #5
Tycho wrote: post #3

Most of the serious research and development, the hard part of it, is funded by the public. In fact most of the economy comes out of public expenditures through the state system, which is the source of most innovation and development. I mean computers, the internet. Just go through the range, it's all coming out of the state system primarily. There is research and development in the corporate system, some, but it's m…

I think there is a [citation needed] there, but I also think he's willfully ignoring that productizing stuff is difficult. Here's a great example of "public goods" that's near and dear to my heart: I love Linux, and there's no way in hell I'd use anything else. However, it's hard to argue that it sets the pace in terms of usability. Commercial operations produced easier systems for the end user well before Linux got…

The fact that producing stuff is difficult is enough to create an opportunity. If you produce better stuff (price,quality,marketing) you get to sell more and earn more. This gives you an opportunity to invest more in to the system. So you get to be ahead of your competitors. And everybody gets to be ahead as side result with time as well, thus you need to keep investing and keep on trying.

The problem is that some industries feel entitled to retire on mohito island while humanity gets to drag them along.

Also most of people using and developing Linux live off it - one way or another. I'm certain that professional/user ratio is in strong favour of Linux.

Idea that companies put money into R&D solely due to intellectual property, or that they only make enough to put something into R&D because of IP is wrong.

Look at some of the most successful businesses in the world. Selling sugared water, selling grilled pieces of meat, selling washing machines and various appliances, selling pieces of wood that fit together,...

Taking whatever IP from them wouldn't change their R&D and other forward looking spending activities much.

And don't come back to me with low tech/high tech argument. High tech production is even harder, that's why those who know how to do it and keep successfully investing into getting beter, get to run the show. Those who don't know how to improve and those who want to collect tax on everybody forever should just roll over and die.

Re: Chomsky on Intellectual Property

#13

Post by rbranson »

tjr wrote: post #7
rick888 wrote: post #2

"I mean, Einstein didn't have any intellectual property rights on relativity theory." I'm fine with scientific facts not being patented, but something like Photoshop or Microsoft windows isn't scientific fact.

How about file formats? Graphics manipulation algorithms? Where's the line between things like relativity theory and things like Photoshop?

Relativity theory isn't patentable as there is no business model which could commercialize it.

Patents were originally intended as a way to encourage innovation because they created a give and take relationship between private interests and the public. The inventor had to disclose the invention's inner workings, and in exchange they were given a relatively short period of exclusivity. The public benefited because the innovation was fully disclosed for others to dissect and re-apply some of those techniques and processes to new inventions.

In the current modern US copyright & patent system, where very few patents actually cover true innovation, there is little public benefit beyond this notion that protecting the inventor from copycats increases their likelihood to innovate. Of course, there is no scientific process that has lead people to this conclusion, so it is honestly an educated guess at best.

The dominant thinking in the business world seems to be that overall execution has become the dominant factor in commercial success and not a particular single innovation. Protecting these interests provides little benefit to anyone besides IP attorneys.

Re: Chomsky on Intellectual Property

#14

Post by davidw »

DuncanIdaho wrote: post #12
davidw wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think there is a [citation needed] there, but I also think he's willfully ignoring that productizing stuff is difficult. Here's a great example of "public goods" that's near and dear to my heart: I love Linux, and there's no way in hell I'd use anything else. However, it's hard to argue that it sets the pace in terms of usability. Commercial operations produced easier systems for the end user well before Linux got…

The fact that producing stuff is difficult is enough to create an opportunity. If you produce better stuff (price,quality,marketing) you get to sell more and earn more. This gives you an opportunity to invest more in to the system. So you get to be ahead of your competitors. And everybody gets to be ahead as side result with time as well, thus you need to keep investing and keep on trying. The problem is that some in…

> producing stuff is difficult is enough to create an opportunity

Producing "information stuff" is difficult, but copying it is extremely easy.

You can pay a team of 100 guys to work for a year creating a program, a movie, or whatever, and then have it copied around the internet in a few hours, for free. Leaving you zero income, and a large loss on your sunk costs.

That's why IP exists. There is ample scope for arguing about whether the present rules and regulations are ideal (I don't think so), but the idea behind the system makes sense for many situations.

Re: Chomsky on Intellectual Property

#15

Post by maxharris »

entangld wrote: post #11
maxharris wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Where does one stop and the other begin? Much of what we call research vs. what we call development is simply an artifact that stems from the way science is funded today. However, science can't (and won't) always be funded by giant government bodies. (To say that it will assumes that the way things are can go on forever, but history shows that civilizations have lifespans just like everything else.)

Pharmaceutical R&D companies have become just development companies because they stop looking for new drugs and are simply repackaging and reformulating existing drugs (e.g. Claritin/Clarinex). They're doing this because it costs too much to do research and development gives them quicker return on investment.

They'll do their own research when the government stops competing with them in that arena. Until then, why duplicate it when they (and everyone else) has been forced to pay for it anyway? (I'm all for research, but I'm against forcing people to pay for it. The best scientific research is intricately tied into industry anyway. For example, where would biochemistry be without cyclotrons, radiolabeling, glassware and chemical reagents? All of that was possible because of private industrial work. Ever heard of Peter Mitchell?)

Second, pharmas aren't free to develop whatever they think would be profitable. New drugs cost around a billion dollars to develop because of the FDA, which is ridiculous. There are many rare illnesses for which affected people don't want the "safety" the FDA imposes. As long as billion dollar development costs are imposed on every drug, there is no chance that any progress can be made for these people. So it's not the pharmas, it's the regulation.

Re: Chomsky on Intellectual Property

#16

Post by davidw »

rbranson wrote: post #13
tjr wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How about file formats? Graphics manipulation algorithms? Where's the line between things like relativity theory and things like Photoshop?

Relativity theory isn't patentable as there is no business model which could commercialize it. Patents were originally intended as a way to encourage innovation because they created a give and take relationship between private interests and the public. The inventor had to disclose the invention's inner workings, and in exchange they were given a relatively short period of exclusivity. The public benefited because the…

Copyright and patents are very different bits of IP.

Creative works like books are under copyright. You don't think that the ability to earn a living benefits the public by allowing a higher level of production of books, movies, music, etc...? I'm certain that things are tilted too far in favor of companies like Disney, but that doesn't mean the system should be thrown out entirely.

Patents seem like they depend more on the field: I think they're a hindrance for computer science, but am less convinced that they're a bad thing for things like drugs. In any case, it's a compromise, like you say, so the answer is likely to be in the middle somewhere.

Re: Chomsky on Intellectual Property

#17

Post by edw519 »

First this:

They don't make any economic sense or any other sense.

Then this:

They should be working for the public good. (Applause) And that means it should be available to the public. So...

So...why aren't any of these (his 145 books):

http://www.amazon.com/gp/search/ref=sr_tc_2_0?rh=i%3Astripbo...

in the public domain?

Re: Chomsky on Intellectual Property

#18

Post by serichsen »

davidw wrote: post #14
DuncanIdaho wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The fact that producing stuff is difficult is enough to create an opportunity. If you produce better stuff (price,quality,marketing) you get to sell more and earn more. This gives you an opportunity to invest more in to the system. So you get to be ahead of your competitors. And everybody gets to be ahead as side result with time as well, thus you need to keep investing and keep on trying. The problem is that some in…

> producing stuff is difficult is enough to create an opportunity Producing "information stuff" is difficult, but copying it is extremely easy. You can pay a team of 100 guys to work for a year creating a program, a movie, or whatever, and then have it copied around the internet in a few hours, for free. Leaving you zero income, and a large loss on your sunk costs. That's why IP exists. There is ample scope for argui…

I still like the idea to be paid for producing, not for copying. The 100 guys you mentioned did it right.

Re: Chomsky on Intellectual Property

#19

Post by rick888 »

tjr wrote: post #7
rick888 wrote: post #2

"I mean, Einstein didn't have any intellectual property rights on relativity theory." I'm fine with scientific facts not being patented, but something like Photoshop or Microsoft windows isn't scientific fact.

How about file formats? Graphics manipulation algorithms? Where's the line between things like relativity theory and things like Photoshop?

"How about file formats? Graphics manipulation algorithms? "

If Einstein wouldn't have come up with his theory, someone else would have. Those properties aren't going to change.

Photoshop, file formats, and algorithms are unique to the individual/individuals that created them.

Re: Chomsky on Intellectual Property

#20

Post by eyeforgotmyname »

rick888 wrote: post #2

"I mean, Einstein didn't have any intellectual property rights on relativity theory." I'm fine with scientific facts not being patented, but something like Photoshop or Microsoft windows isn't scientific fact.

It's ironic that Einstein couldn't file a patent on relativity.
Post reply on HN