J
Joe
"David Candy" <.> wrote in message
Where have I said I condone piracy. I merely pointed out this concept of "IP
Rights" is state sactioned extortion. Just like farm subsidies.
IP Rights give a monopoly to encourage innovation. But the purpose isn't to
give rents to and protect from competition private interests. It is to
encourage innovation. The social bad of monopoly is outweighed by the social
good of innovation, at least in theory. But it is intended to be a short
term monopoly so the social bad doesn't last too long.
One of the big issues in recent US-Australia Free Trade Agreement was
evergreening by drug companies. This is where their patent runs out so they
reapply. This prevents other drug companies from suppling the drug at non
rent prices. If you yanks knew what your government does to you we'd be
talking about the second american revolution (as I imagine people are dying
as the US government doesn't guarantue access to drugs like the Australian
govt - all drugs are $2.60 for low income people and $26 for others with a
$400 cap on what you need to spend in any year - need 2000 prescription at
$26 = $400 max).
Anyway back to the topic. Patents were not designed to work this way and the
patents will probably not be upheld. But drug companies have also captured
congress (all rent seekers do - it's how they impose their rents) and the US
governments now actively supports the subverting of US patent law
(evergreening was made illegal here last year).
What you said about me indicates one of the following
a/ You didn't understand what I said (likely)
b/ You believe that rents should be imposed on consumers and/or taxpapers
and that these rents should be increased for private benefit and public bad.
And the only critera on how much benefit is the want of the private
interest. (unlikely)
Lets look at agriculture (I wanted to be an agriculture scientist at school
and have some qualification in Wool Technology).
Subsidies to farmers are voted on by congress who are bribed and/or
threatened (ie we'll campaign against you during elections) by farmers.
Farmers can now grow their crops and get paid by the government. Australian
farmers do not get subsidised. Australian farmers compete with US and EU
subsidised farmers. They are efficient (they have to be to compete) and
produce food at a cost that matches US and EU farmers cost minus the
subsidy. If a tonne of wheat cost $100 in australia to grow and we assume a
$40 subsidy in US/EU, then US/EU farmers costs will be $140. This is because
the subsidy means they don't need to be as efficient. This reduces economic
growth and means that most people in the US/EU are poorer than what they
would otherwise be.
Software is no different. Windows is horridly expensive because MS is a
monopoly, and patent/copyright law allows them to maintain their monopoly.
But software is a product and should only have patent law applying to it (7
year monopoly) which balances the public good of innovation vs the public
bad of monopoly. But software companies used copyright law which allows
50/70 years of monopoly and used their capture of congress to get a
completely free extension of 20 years. Microsoft also reduces economic
growth as investment monies gets spent on Windows/Office rather than a new
press or employing more staff for all the other companies in the world.
You need to remember that rent seekers pretend to be capitalists, they talk
the same lingo but their goals are the opposite of capitalism. They are
adept at coopting others to their support. Australia is going through micro
economic reform of electronic funds transfer and and credit/debit cards (and
visa and mastercard now live in the high court trying to stop it). The
supermarkets have their own EFT networks and their concern at not being able
to extort 100s of millions from banks is, so they say, motivated by concern
for lower prices for their customers.
One thing about micro economic reform is it seeks to unwind cross subsidies
so more economicly efficient decisions are made. With microsoft (and I only
use MS as an example because we are familar with them) they use the office
inflows to subsidise other business, like MSN or XBox. This reduces
competition as others can't afford to operate at a loss. So the least
efficient operator forces out more efficient operators.
Another principal is there should be a relationship with the cost of the
good/service. If an office type product costs $1 to make and is selling at
$100 lots of firms will start making and selling it so the price will come
down, via competition, to just above $1. Patents prevent this happening.
So please show me where I advocate stealing.
--
----------------------------------------------------------
http://www.uscricket.com
Come on be fair, the Ausis are not the same as we are, and they have
different attitudes, almost 80% of the blood stock of Australians came from
the British Penal system, do you not believe genetics plays a role in
criminal tendancies? Look what they did to the poor Abos, australia was our
biggest penal coleny, we should be ashamed of ourselves for what we did to
that country, it is surprising that Australians are even pro British, we
created an entire nation out of an entire penal system, and do you know the
reason??
Because our government did not care enough to pay for proper prison reforms
in the UK, it was easier to ship them to the penal colonies and mines of
Australia. It was one of our darkest things, not quite the same thing as a
concentration camp but it was very very bad and now don't complain if you
find the Australian national attitude different than our high moral
standards. Look at the crime statistics in Australia you can see for
yourselves
Where have I said I condone piracy. I merely pointed out this concept of "IP
Rights" is state sactioned extortion. Just like farm subsidies.
IP Rights give a monopoly to encourage innovation. But the purpose isn't to
give rents to and protect from competition private interests. It is to
encourage innovation. The social bad of monopoly is outweighed by the social
good of innovation, at least in theory. But it is intended to be a short
term monopoly so the social bad doesn't last too long.
One of the big issues in recent US-Australia Free Trade Agreement was
evergreening by drug companies. This is where their patent runs out so they
reapply. This prevents other drug companies from suppling the drug at non
rent prices. If you yanks knew what your government does to you we'd be
talking about the second american revolution (as I imagine people are dying
as the US government doesn't guarantue access to drugs like the Australian
govt - all drugs are $2.60 for low income people and $26 for others with a
$400 cap on what you need to spend in any year - need 2000 prescription at
$26 = $400 max).
Anyway back to the topic. Patents were not designed to work this way and the
patents will probably not be upheld. But drug companies have also captured
congress (all rent seekers do - it's how they impose their rents) and the US
governments now actively supports the subverting of US patent law
(evergreening was made illegal here last year).
What you said about me indicates one of the following
a/ You didn't understand what I said (likely)
b/ You believe that rents should be imposed on consumers and/or taxpapers
and that these rents should be increased for private benefit and public bad.
And the only critera on how much benefit is the want of the private
interest. (unlikely)
Lets look at agriculture (I wanted to be an agriculture scientist at school
and have some qualification in Wool Technology).
Subsidies to farmers are voted on by congress who are bribed and/or
threatened (ie we'll campaign against you during elections) by farmers.
Farmers can now grow their crops and get paid by the government. Australian
farmers do not get subsidised. Australian farmers compete with US and EU
subsidised farmers. They are efficient (they have to be to compete) and
produce food at a cost that matches US and EU farmers cost minus the
subsidy. If a tonne of wheat cost $100 in australia to grow and we assume a
$40 subsidy in US/EU, then US/EU farmers costs will be $140. This is because
the subsidy means they don't need to be as efficient. This reduces economic
growth and means that most people in the US/EU are poorer than what they
would otherwise be.
Software is no different. Windows is horridly expensive because MS is a
monopoly, and patent/copyright law allows them to maintain their monopoly.
But software is a product and should only have patent law applying to it (7
year monopoly) which balances the public good of innovation vs the public
bad of monopoly. But software companies used copyright law which allows
50/70 years of monopoly and used their capture of congress to get a
completely free extension of 20 years. Microsoft also reduces economic
growth as investment monies gets spent on Windows/Office rather than a new
press or employing more staff for all the other companies in the world.
You need to remember that rent seekers pretend to be capitalists, they talk
the same lingo but their goals are the opposite of capitalism. They are
adept at coopting others to their support. Australia is going through micro
economic reform of electronic funds transfer and and credit/debit cards (and
visa and mastercard now live in the high court trying to stop it). The
supermarkets have their own EFT networks and their concern at not being able
to extort 100s of millions from banks is, so they say, motivated by concern
for lower prices for their customers.
One thing about micro economic reform is it seeks to unwind cross subsidies
so more economicly efficient decisions are made. With microsoft (and I only
use MS as an example because we are familar with them) they use the office
inflows to subsidise other business, like MSN or XBox. This reduces
competition as others can't afford to operate at a loss. So the least
efficient operator forces out more efficient operators.
Another principal is there should be a relationship with the cost of the
good/service. If an office type product costs $1 to make and is selling at
$100 lots of firms will start making and selling it so the price will come
down, via competition, to just above $1. Patents prevent this happening.
So please show me where I advocate stealing.
--
----------------------------------------------------------
http://www.uscricket.com
Richard Urban said:
Come on be fair, the Ausis are not the same as we are, and they have
different attitudes, almost 80% of the blood stock of Australians came from
the British Penal system, do you not believe genetics plays a role in
criminal tendancies? Look what they did to the poor Abos, australia was our
biggest penal coleny, we should be ashamed of ourselves for what we did to
that country, it is surprising that Australians are even pro British, we
created an entire nation out of an entire penal system, and do you know the
reason??
Because our government did not care enough to pay for proper prison reforms
in the UK, it was easier to ship them to the penal colonies and mines of
Australia. It was one of our darkest things, not quite the same thing as a
concentration camp but it was very very bad and now don't complain if you
find the Australian national attitude different than our high moral
standards. Look at the crime statistics in Australia you can see for
yourselves