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

21–30 of 133 posts

Re: Chomsky on Intellectual Property

#21

Post by wlievens »

maxharris wrote: post #15
entangld wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 ch…

The other side of that argument is of course that most patients don't want "unsafe" drugs, so that regulation has a purpose.

Is there any way to get a best of both worlds in this scenario? Quicker to-market times for drugs for rare and dangerous diseases, and the safe route for the more common drugs?

Re: Chomsky on Intellectual Property

#22

Post by anon1385 »

edw519 wrote: post #17

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?

http://chomsky.info/books/counter-revolutionary-violence.htm like this?

or this: http://books.zcommunications.org/chomsky/year/year-overview....

or this: http://books.zcommunications.org/chomsky/sld/sld-contents.ht...

or this: http://books.zcommunications.org/chomsky/rab/rab-contents.ht...

or this: http://books.zcommunications.org/chomsky/ni/ni-contents.html

or this: http://books.zcommunications.org/chomsky/dd/dd-overview.html

or this: http://books.zcommunications.org/chomsky/rc/rc-contents.html

Re: Chomsky on Intellectual Property

#23

Post by maxharris »

wlievens wrote: post #21
maxharris wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 ch…

The other side of that argument is of course that most patients don't want "unsafe" drugs, so that regulation has a purpose. Is there any way to get a best of both worlds in this scenario? Quicker to-market times for drugs for rare and dangerous diseases, and the safe route for the more common drugs?

Is there any way to get a best of both worlds in this scenario? Quicker to-market times for drugs for rare and dangerous diseases, and the safe route for the more common drugs?

Of course there is. Regulations can be changed, freeing drug companies to research and develop these drugs. In fact, I'm sure that this change - this partial deregulation compromise - is going to happen, someday.

But on what principle should we stop there? Where do you draw the line, and why? If the regulations say "freedom only for drug developers that treat diseases that affect 15,000 people with five years," on what principle do you cut freedom short for the 15,001th patient, or the one who is expected to live five years and a day?

Re: Chomsky on Intellectual Property

#24

Post by hasenj »

maxharris wrote: post #4
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…

the hard part of it This is absolutely false. I agree that discovery isn't easy, but you know what's even harder? The other 90% of the work needed to finish it and make it a reliable product. Chomsky trivializes the work of synthetic organic chemists, the engineers that set up and keep production lines going, researchers that test the drugs, and so on. In software terms, this is like saying that all the hard work is…

Try running a startup without Linux and the entire open source ecosystem.

Re: Chomsky on Intellectual Property

#25

Post by iwwr »

This is quite relevant all on its own, even if slightly off-topic:

[the WTO Uruguay agreement is] called a "free trade agreement". It's in fact a highly protectionist agreement. The US is strongly opposed to free trade, just as business leaders are, just as they're opposed to a market economy.

Re: Chomsky on Intellectual Property

#26

Post by hasenj »

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…

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

1. Make Nukes 2. Threaten other countries 3. ??? 4. PROFIT

Re: Chomsky on Intellectual Property

#27

Post by weego »

monochromatic wrote: post #8

Does anyone seriously still listen to Chomsky? This guy has zero credibility as far as I'm concerned.

I listen and tend to agree with a large swathes of what he says, though not everything.

I've yet to come across a reason to doubt his credibility, but I'd be interested in reading a counter point to his arguments if you have some sources.

Re: Chomsky on Intellectual Property

#28

Post by Symmetry »

Tycho wrote: post #10

We certainly wouldn't have had a textile industry. British textiles were way cheaper and better. Actually British textiles were cheaper and better because Britain had crushed Irish and Indian superior textile manufacturers and stolen their techniques. So they were now the preeminent textile manufacturer, by force of course.

I have no idea what he's talking about here. The British did do a number of horrible things in India and did use force to crush, for example, the Indian shipbuilding industry. They also could have learned a lot from Indian metallurgy if they were a bit less arrogant. But textiles? I guess they did "steal" cotton, but that wasn't really an invention in the sense he's talking about.

Re: Chomsky on Intellectual Property

#29

Post by maxharris »

hasenj wrote: post #24
maxharris wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

the hard part of it This is absolutely false. I agree that discovery isn't easy, but you know what's even harder? The other 90% of the work needed to finish it and make it a reliable product. Chomsky trivializes the work of synthetic organic chemists, the engineers that set up and keep production lines going, researchers that test the drugs, and so on. In software terms, this is like saying that all the hard work is…

Try running a startup without Linux and the entire open source ecosystem.

I'm a BSD fan myself, but startups are possible without open source. Stack Overflow runs on Windows, for example.

The one thing that startups need is freedom to make what people want so that those people will freely choose to pay the startup (how many startups existed in the USSR in 1970?). OSS is just a nice-to-have once you look at it that way. If it was a necessity, you'd have to explain how there were startups before anything was open source.

Edit: OSS would still exist in some form even if there were no government funding for it. You know how some people say they do it just for fun? I think that's true.

Re: Chomsky on Intellectual Property

#30

Post by stephth »

edw519 wrote: post #17

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?

Putting work into the Public Domain is ironically not the best way to serve the public good. It's much safer to have a permissive license. Chomsky's answer here might have unintentionally passed the wrong idea in that sense.
Post reply on HN