"Intellectual property" is no longer funny

F

Fen

Registered Senior Member
They're having a vote in the WTO to let poorer countries import or
manufacture drugs for AIDS. But the pharmaceutical companies don't
like this--it infringes on their "intellectual property". It's all
fun in games when you're joking about going to jail for copying a
Britney mp3, but this is just wrong. Their typical BS, that nothing
new would be made without "intellectual property" is no longer
annoying, it's evil. Have governments do it. Have it done for donations. But the idea of owning information is not just illogical, it's evil.
 
Haven't you posted the same thing here before?

My reply from last time stands.

How would you like it if you spent a year writing a novel, then the day after you published it somebody else started printing off thousands of copies and selling them, with no royalties to you?

Intellectual property laws are the only thing stopping that from happening.
 
Intellectual property laws are the only thing stopping that from happening.
Click to expand...
How exactly? Copyright infringment is only getting worse is it not?
In the case AIDS drugs it's better for people to die then is it?
Obviously AIDS research has nothing to do with saving lives but making money. As far as I'm concerned those that can pay should and those that can't pay shouldn't. Or should a decent quality of health only be available to those with money?
 
What do you have against aids?
Nazi:mad:
How would you like it if I tried to "cleanse" the world of your kind?
 
Of course no one wants to see poor people go without medication, but the unfortunate truth is that it take a staggering amount of money to develop pharmaceuticals . It costs an average of $500 million to develop and test a new drug. Only about 30% of the prescription drugs that are approved for human use ever generate enough revenues for the pharmaceutical companies to recoup their research and development costs. A great deal of money is wasted on attempts to develop drugs that end up not working; only 1 in 5 drugs that make it to clinical trials are approved for human use.

The harsh reality is that if the drug companies don't make a profit on their products, pretty soon there will be far fewer new drugs available. It would be great for people to develop new drugs and then give them away, but very few altruistic organizations are willing to invest half a billion dollars in drug research.
 
Originally posted by Nasor
Of course no one wants to see poor people go without medication, but the unfortunate truth is that it take a staggering amount of money to develop pharmaceuticals . It costs an average of $500 million to develop and test a new drug. Only about 30% of the prescription drugs that are approved for human use ever generate enough revenues for the pharmaceutical companies to recoup their research and development costs. A great deal of money is wasted on attempts to develop drugs that end up not working; only 1 in 5 drugs that make it to clinical trials are approved for human use.

The harsh reality is that if the drug companies don't make a profit on their products, pretty soon there will be far fewer new drugs available. It would be great for people to develop new drugs and then give them away, but very few altruistic organizations are willing to invest half a billion dollars in drug research.
Click to expand...

Do you think being pessemistic and cynical is original? Why even bother posting your regurgitated drivel?
 
Actually, I think the WHO has just today voted to make certain AIDS medicines available cheaply to developing countries.
 
Well, making a cure or AIDS is supposed to be dillematic....
It is needed to save millions of infected people.....
Yet, clearing it will threaten the moral as well...
 
Originally posted by Fen
Do you think being pessemistic and cynical is original? Why even bother posting your regurgitated drivel?
Click to expand...
By 'pessimistic and cynical' did you mean 'realistic'? I gave you an accurate description of how much it costs to develop new drugs and explained why drugs cost so much, and you responded with an ad hominem attack. Do you have a reasoned response for me?
 
Originally posted by Nasor
By 'pessimistic and cynical' did you mean 'realistic'? I gave you an accurate description of how much it costs to develop new drugs and explained why drugs cost so much, and you responded with an ad hominem attack. Do you have a reasoned response for me?
Click to expand...

Ding ding ding, responds by claiming to be 'realistic'. We got a bot here.
 
Unfortunately, every time I read of poor drugs companies wasting billions on research that needs recouping, I am reminded of the fact that they spend as much money on marketing as they do on research, and will patent everything in sight to try and cover all eventualities. And that what they are interested in is lifestyle drugs, because poor africans by definition dont have much money to spend. The moral of this story? Your all going to have to pay for stuff out of taxes, or else nationalise drugs companies, or something.
You see, Im kind of split, in this current set up intellectual property rights are necessary to make profits, except that every country and company in the world has ignored IP when it suites them, generally when they are trying to get an industry off the ground. And at the end of the day, money doesnt matter, its the people that do.
 
Closed because of "Software-Patents"

In the next few days, the European Parliament will decide about the legalisation and adoption of so-called "software patents" in Europe, which are already used by large companies in other countries to put competitors out of business. This can lead to the termination of many software projects such as KNOPPIX, at least within Europe, because the holders of the over 30,000 already granted "software patents" (currently without a legal foundation) can claim exclusive rights and collect license fees for trivial things like "progress bars", "mouseclicks on online order forms", "scrolling within a window" and similar. That way, software developers will have to pay the "software-patentholders" for using these features, even in their own, completely self-developed applications, which can completely stall the development of innovative software for small and medium companies. Apart from this, the expense for patent inquiries and legal assistence is high, for even trying to find out if the self-developed software is possibly violating "software-patents", if you want to continue to market your software. Contrary to real patents, "software-patents" are, in the current draft, monopolization of business ideas and methods, even without any tangible technical implementation.

http://www.knopper.net/knoppix/index-en.html

http://slashdot.org/articles/03/08/29/0510200.shtml?tid=155&tid=185&tid=99

http://newsforge.com/newsforge/03/08/19/1359229.shtml?tid=23

i did manage to d/l the knoppix distro (way cool linux on a bootable cd)

the sco shit is hilarious


The SCO Group Inc., a small Utah software company that claims it owns the rights to key elements of Linux, yesterday demanded that users of the freely distributed operating system pay US$699 for each server running Linux or face lawsuits. SCO chief executive Darl McBride likened his company's plans to sue Linux users to the litigious tactics of the recording industry, which recently said it would sue people who illegally swap copyrighted music files over the Internet. The new licensing plan, revealed one day after the Linux company Red Hat Inc. asked a federal judge to force SCO to reveal the substance of its claims to Linux, raised the stakes in the growing battle over who owns Linux, the open-source operating system created and improved by a far-flung community of computer programmers.

http://www.macobserver.com/article/2003/08/29.11.shtml

google

nigerian email spoof

they dropped the shit tho
 
Last edited:
Originally posted by Fen
Ding ding ding, responds by claiming to be 'realistic'. We got a bot here.
Click to expand...
My information came from the article "Returns to R&D on New Drug Introductions" by Grabowski and Vernon published in the Journal of Health Economics, Vol. 13, 1994.

You apparently disagree with what I've said, but you've yet to actually offer a reasoned response. I'm sure you realize that calling me a 'bot' doesn't make my information any less true. I'll ask again, do you have anything other than ad hominem attacks?
 
"WASHINGTON - July 10 - A new report by the consumer health organization Families USA refutes the pharmaceutical industry's claim that high and increasing drug prices are needed to sustain research and development. The report documents that drug companies are spending more than twice as much on marketing, advertising, and administration than they do on research and development; that drug company profits, which are higher than all other industries, exceed research and development expenditures; and that drug companies provide lavish compensation packages for their top executives.
The report comes on the heels of a recent Families USA analysis that found prices rose more than twice the rate of inflation last year for the 50 most-prescribed drugs to seniors.

Among the nine pharmaceutical companies examined in the report - Merck, Pfizer, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Pharmacia, Abbott Laboratories, American Home Products, Eli Lilly, Schering-Plough, and Allergan - all but one (Eli Lilly) spent more than twice as much on marketing, advertising, and administration than they did on research and development, and Lilly spent more than one and one-half times as much. Six out of the nine companies made more money in net profits than they spent on research and development last year. "

From:
http://www.commondreams.org/news2001/0710-07.htm
 
why thanks guthrie

Merck, Pfizer, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Pharmacia, Abbott Laboratories, American Home Products, Eli Lilly, Schering-Plough, and Allergan - all but one (Eli Lilly) spent more than twice as much on marketing, advertising, and administration than they did on research and development, and Lilly spent more than one and one-half times as much.

how hollow the common refrain sounds now
 
Re: why thanks guthrie

Originally posted by spookz
Merck, Pfizer, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Pharmacia, Abbott Laboratories, American Home Products, Eli Lilly, Schering-Plough, and Allergan - all but one (Eli Lilly) spent more than twice as much on marketing, advertising, and administration than they did on research and development, and Lilly spent more than one and one-half times as much.

how hollow the common refrain sounds now
Click to expand...

Right. It will come down to government bureacracy versus private marketing/advertising waste. As a libertarian, I'd hate to endorse government, but anything is better than a system as unnatural as patents.
 
Originally posted by spookz
i am anti greed not anti patent. i wanna profit just as much as the next dude.
Click to expand...

Ah, idiocy and uncapitalization do go together. "i am anti greed." "i wanna profit just as much as the next dude."
 
Originally posted by Fen
Ah, idiocy and uncapitalization do go together. "i am anti greed." "i wanna profit just as much as the next dude."
Click to expand...

It seems you are confusing greed and envy. "I want to profit as much as the next dude" sounds like envy (not greed) to me.
 
"profit as much as the next guy" indicates that to profit is commonplace. it is normal. it indicates i have nothing against... bah why bother:D

perhaps going back to school might be a good idea eh?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top