Welcome To A New America!!!!! (For the better even)

[Zur]

Apocalypse? That would be fun wouldn't it.

No I mean government need to be held accountable, maybe by a new power. At the moment, there's the executive, legislative and judicial. There needs to be another power that the executive and legislative are doing their job. It would also ideally be composed of citizens. It's either that or better transparency on spending.

 

[Crotale]

Source?

Since you made the first claim, I feel the onus is on you to provide source data.

 

[Larkin]

Not saying that they shouldn't be able to patent it for a limited amount of time so that they can benefit from their work for a specified amount of time after being the first to do it. But then it should expire and allow others to compete, lowering the cost of whatever the patented technology/idea is and bring its benefits to the masses more easily, and improve the human condition. And this is how it is supposed to work anyway. But again, the patent law isn't what I'm balking at, it's the notion being expressed that societal benefit means nothing and that they should well be able to patent it indefinitely.

We are talking about property that companies build themselves around and companies need that property to stay theirs. What is important to note that everyone seems to of missed in my last post is that the other companies can be competitive if they just take the original designed product and just change one or two things about it and call it something else. What you guys want ,and, lets just admit it already, is to allow generic medicine companies to steal the original design so they can sell it to you for cheaper. And if that is truly what you want, then can I rob your house later? I need stuff for some customers on the black market and I seem to be empty handed, real bummer you know. They seem to always have knives for some reason.

To everyone else that didn't care for what I said, see if I care. You can dream about your little its ok to steal here but not here dreams, but leave me out of it.

 

[Lizard Of Oz]

But whose fault is that? The Constitution gives us a perfectly fine guideline for the involvement of federal government in citizen's lives. The problem is that the federal government is not satisfied with limited power, they want to be as powerful or more powerful than local and state governments and they shouldn't be.

Then you'll be happy to know that ...

U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder is sending strong signals that President Obama - who as a candidate said states should be allowed to make their own rules on medical marijuana - will end raids on pot dispensaries in California.

WOO HOO! GO STATES RIGHTS!

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2009/02/26/MN2016651R.DTL

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/29433708/

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/02/26/holder-vows-to-end-raids_n_170119.html


(SF Chronicle, MSNBC, Huffiington! LOL! Did I do it right?)

 

[Zur]

We are talking about property that companies build themselves around and companies need that property to stay theirs.

That's called reverse engineering and that's exactly what Compaq did with the first IBM PCs (they hacked the ROM) to produce the first compatibles. If this hadn't happened you would not be typing away on a forum with your sub-$1000 PC with the processing power equivalent to yesterday's super computers on a graphics interface.

What you guys want ,and, lets just admit it already, is to allow generic medicine companies to steal the original design so they can sell it to you for cheaper. And if that is truly what you want, then can I rob your house later?

That is what generics are about by definition. When a patent expires in the pharmaceutical industry , others are free to copy a molecule. You might be using generic medecine without even knowing it .

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Generic_drug

When can a generic drug be produced?

When a pharmaceutical company first markets a drug, it is usually under a patent that allows only the pharmaceutical company that developed the drug to sell it. Generic drugs can be legally produced for drugs where: 1) the patent has expired, 2) the generic company certifies the brand company's patents are either invalid, unenforceable or will not be infringed, 3) for drugs which have never held patents, or 4) in countriesclinical trials. In addition, a patent on a changed compound does not prevent sales of the generic versions of the original drug unless regulators take the original drug off the market.

This allows the company to recoup the cost of developing that particular drug. After the patent on a drug expires, any pharmaceutical company can manufacture and sell that drug. Since the drug has already been tested and approved, the cost of simply manufacturing the drug will be a fraction of the original cost of testing and developing that particular drug.

Generic drugs can save patients and insurance companies substantial costs. The principal reason for the relatively low price of generic medicines is that competition increases among producers when drugs no longer are protected by patents. Companies incur fewer costs in creating the generic drug, and are therefore able to maintain profitability at a lower cost to consumers. The costs of these generic drugs are so low that many developing countries can easily afford them. For example Thailand is going to import millions of doses of the generic version of Plavix, a blood-thinning treatment to prevent heart attacks, at a cost of 3 US cents per dose from India, the leading manufacturer of generic drugs.[2]

The advantage of generic drugs to consumers comes in the introduction of competition, which prevents any single company from dictating the overall market price of the drug. Competition is also seen between generic and name-brand drugs with similar therapeutic uses when physicians or health plans adopt policies of preferentially prescribing generic drugs as in step therapy. With multiple firms producing the generic version of a drug the profit-maximizing price generally falls to the ongoing cost of producing the drug, which is usually much lower than the monopoly price[4].

So there you have it. The measures that brought about generics could be seen as interference but it is also one example of an attempt to preserve a free market as hal calls it. Antitrust laws are another example.

P.S: It just clicked in my mind that there's a fear that the "central" US government wrestles power away from the the states. That's not clear at all to outsiders. It explains a lot.

 

[Grobut]

Since you made the first claim, I feel the onus is on you to provide source data.

Claim? lets not turn this into one of thouse little chats.. what i said was a "tongue in cheek" amusement and nothing more.

But i doubt you are correct, as an Airsofter i see no shortage of China made clones of more expensive Japanese and Taiwanese products every week, they are more abundant than grass, and they are absolutely just reverse engineered copies, made and sold perfectly legit under Chinese law, and i know for a fact that the manufacturers they copy thease designs from are powerless to do anything about it, as this is perfectly legal for a Chinese company to do.

If a western company was to do the same, they would get sued plenty quick, and indeed, copyright holders here in the west try to prevent or regulate the sale of thease Chinese products, but they cannot stop private import for personal use, and there is no shortage of Hong Kong based retailers that will sell them to us, so they fail.

I deal with this sort of stuff every day, and indeed, i certainly have made some bargains buying Chinese!

We are talking about property that companies build themselves around and companies need that property to stay theirs. What is important to note that everyone seems to of missed in my last post is that the other companies can be competitive if they just take the original designed product and just change one or two things about it and call it something else. What you guys want ,and, lets just admit it already, is to allow generic medicine companies to steal the original design so they can sell it to you for cheaper. And if that is truly what you want, then can I rob your house later? I need stuff for some customers on the black market and I seem to be empty handed, real bummer you know. They seem to always have knives for some reason.

And why is it theft? because copyright laws says so!

But that leads us to the obvious question then.. is the notion of "Copyright" actually within the spirit of free market Capitalism? or is it against that spirit?

Nomatter how i try to view it, i can only conclude it is against free market Capitalism, and pro monopoly, that it fly's in the face of the whole concept of a free market.

 

[Crotale]

It may be that Chinese officials turn a blind eye to certain practices, but their laws say something much different. I'll agree to the stipulation that the practice of "cloning" in rampant in Asia, not just China.

 

[Larkin]

And why is it theft? because copyright laws says so!

But that leads us to the obvious question then.. is the notion of "Copyright" actually within the spirit of free market Capitalism? or is it against that spirit?

Nomatter how i try to view it, i can only conclude it is against free market Capitalism, and pro monopoly, that it fly's in the face of the whole concept of a free market.

Patients are to protect your ORIGINAL DESIGN of whatever you made and have been around for hundreds of years it has basically been there to watch capitalism grow in america and then watch it crumble. So are you to say that something that has been around that long and seen its best years and worst years one of the reasons it doesn't work. Seems out there to me.

The idea should encourage competitors to re-engineer the original design so to make a competing product. The reason we have generics is because people realized that medicine companies weren't doing that practice enough and causing monopolies with their products. However, generics is basically just sitting around waiting for a chance to steal so now you have companies trying to avoid their original design from being stolen which makes good business sense in that situation. However Evergreening happens all over the place for one and for simply only one reason, to protect intellectual property, but because something that should be illegal is legal you have people that benefit from the system of generics crying like babies when evergreening happens in medicine. What should have been done to relieve the problem is not to encourage theft by basically making it legal, but instead figuring out a way to get medicine companies to actually start participating in making competing products. The question is how does the government that is missing those mechanics actually do something like that and not do what they always do when they butt in and make it just worse.

Copyrights, patients are part of the back bone of capitalism and the free market simple as that. If that bone is broken by someone something legal needs to be done about it.

However, you are for Chinese imports of stolen designs of products so I feel like I am talking to a brick wall. Good night, I'm out.

And Azura I'm well aware of all that. That's why I was so strict with the language in my posts. The benefits don't over weigh the truth.

 

[hal]

P.S: It just clicked in my mind that there's a fear that the "central" US government wrestles power away from the the states. That's not clear at all to outsiders. It explains a lot.

Well done! Also, cities have their own ordinances. The goal of the foundation of the United States was to have decentralized governments (state and local) under the umbrella of a federal government that had VERY LIMITED AND SPECIFIC powers. They even went so far as to spell out what it could not do.

But i doubt you are correct, as an Airsofter i see no shortage of China made clones of more expensive Japanese and Taiwanese products every week, they are more abundant than grass, and they are absolutely just reverse engineered copies, made and sold perfectly legit under Chinese law, and i know for a fact that the manufacturers they copy thease designs from are powerless to do anything about it, as this is perfectly legal for a Chinese company to do.

Jeez... all you had to do was Google it. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intellectual_property_in_the_People's_Republic_of_China

I give you the infallible Wikipedia. In short, the laws are in place and they are a part of the appropriate treaties, however local authorities sometimes interfere with enforcement when it is in their own best interest.

Nomatter how i try to view it, i can only conclude it is against free market Capitalism, and pro monopoly, that it fly's in the face of the whole concept of a free market.

Well then you're viewing it wrong. Laws to keep business fair and on the level aren't antithetical to a free market. Capitalism isn't anarchy.

 

[kiff]

Laws to keep business fair and on the level aren't antithetical to a free market. Capitalism isn't anarchy.

but wait, wouldn't that mean we should regulate credit and mortgage practices in a capitalist system? BAH!

 

[The_Numberless]

Lots to respond to as I throw in my hat here... so it'll be kind of scattered between topics.

I don't think the problem is in patents/trademarks/copyrights. While sometimes demonstrably flawed, and encouraging of non-competitive business models (which there's a whole hell of a lot doing that, not just patents) it's the pay-for-play legal system we have. Litigious scaremongering is in my mind perhaps the most deplorable business practice.

I am pro-Socialized reforms. Better antitrust regulation is certainly in call. Was it 2006 (pretty sure it was 2006) where all the major oil companies reported a 400% profit margin increase, and the antitrust hearings comprised what I believe to be one of the biggest jokes I've been witness to in my adult life. Oligopoly functions almost identically to monopoly, given enough time for the system to work itself out.

I will recognize that there is the fact that we do have the ability to decide what to support with our dollars. There is also the fact that the disparity between the haves and the have-nots is constantly widening in our current system; every couple of years another rung on the ladder of the so-called 'middle class' bottoms out. The poor become more marginalized, and it becomes rather difficult when you have the nuclear family to spend your money ethically and avoid Sam's Club if it means that your six year old daughter's stomache is going to be rumbling. That decision is not cut-and-dried.

With the depression, people lose even more ability to exercise the discretion of where they spend. If you were just laid off and are living on a meager savings I don't think that you'll be able to spend your money at the slightly more expensive locally owned and operated grocery store.

tl;dr: truth.

 

[Sir_Brizz]

Then you'll be happy to know that ...

WOO HOO! GO STATES RIGHTS!

Well, those actually are good things in general, however I don't think the federal government would turn a blind eye if someone was producing any narcotic drug illegally anywhere in the US, so it seems kind of silly to just turn a blind eye to illegal marijuana production. If they are going to make marijuana a medical drug, it should be treated just like any other prescription drug, imo.

 

[Grobut]

Well then you're viewing it wrong. Laws to keep business fair and on the level aren't antithetical to a free market. Capitalism isn't anarchy.

You have to look at the history, Copyright was established to protect the little guy from the big fish, basically, it was the ensure that Authors coulden't have their work taken and mass produced by printing firms without them seeing a penny for their authorship.

The Statute of Anne describes it as "for the encouragement of learning", the idea beeing that if Authors where sure to be compensated for their writing, they would continue to write books benifiting society at large.

That is the spirit of the law, protecting the little guy, and serving society as a whole.


But that is a far cry from what we see thease days, where a pharmacutical company could actually sit on the cure for cancer, and sell it for 10 million a pill simple because.. they can, that is neither protecting the little guy, nor is it a benifit for society at large, and it is definately not stimulating any kind of healthy competition when any attemp to sell a similar pill is damn near garuenteed to be met by a long and expensive legal battle over weather or not Copyrights and Patents are beeing infringed upon.

Hell knows how many legitimate claims never see the light of day, simply because individuals, small retailers and companies cannot afford to engage a giant corporation in a legal battle.


Ours is a system that breeds monopolies, keeps the big fish big and blocks the little guy, seldomly does it work as intended, and there is something very wrong with the system when entire companies can exist on just buying up Patents and Copyrights, and grow embarresingly wealthy from doing nothing of value, they just sit there, legal document in hand, and cash in on someone elses invention and product whilst inflating prices to absurd levels for their own profit, how is this advancing the human condition? and how exactly is it protecting the little guy? or even stimulating competition and the free market?


There may have been a good intensions behind thease laws circa 1710 when they where first enacted, but the whole thing is rotten to the core thease days, it is in dire need of beeing torn down and rebuild from the ground up, hell, at this point i think we'd be better off not having them at all than letting them stay the way they are.

 

[hal]

but wait, wouldn't that mean we should regulate credit and mortgage practices in a capitalist system? BAH!

Depends on what those regulations are, doesn't it?

There is also the fact that the disparity between the haves and the have-nots is constantly widening in our current system; every couple of years another rung on the ladder of the so-called 'middle class' bottoms out. The poor become more marginalized

On what are you basing that assertion?

You have to look at the history, Copyright was established to protect the little guy from the big fish

How big a fish is too large for protection? Who determines the size of said fish?

 

[Armagon917]

Yeah, I guess that means Obama is...GASP...human

besides, the guy reading it to him actually read it wrong the first time, if you were watching.

thats not being objective. if that was bush you would likely be laughing and using that to further paint him as an idiot. being independent and objective as best i can, you can obviously see that John Roberts was stating too much of the oath at a time which threw him off like you said. completely understandable.

in general people will overlook the most horrible things as long as there is a R or D by their name, whatever party they want to support. a good example is Kennedy drowning his date and after having a long career in politics. i know by reading a lot of comments here that people seem to be well informed. there is a huge number of people who will vote straight party everytime regardless. they will hate whoever seems appropriate because their friends don't like whoever, or a biased news anchor. my favorite band doesn't like bush... i have asked people why they hated bush and at least half the time i was getting reasons that simply were not based in reality or they couldn't tell me.

this shows what i'm talking about and many of you may have seen this before. it is Howard Stern so expect accordingly. i don't like the racial element to this video but i think its important to show.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ViWsmEHsbEs

i have no problem with people who know the issues and think differently than me. i won't name any names but some of you seem really immature with a lot of your comments about the previous administration. isn't it really time to look forward now.

i find it interesting that people who rallied against both wars being fought are perfectly fine with Obama supporting Afghanistan. Just further disturbing completely non objective BS i've encountered. for some reason a lot of people don't understand you can support a candidate, a president and not support everything and anything he says. this has nothing to do with Obama but more a huge percentage of Americans who are utterly clueless.

maybe we should quiz people on very very basic issues at the polls to allow entry. jk, that whole consitution thing would get in the way of that i think. i think both parties need to start leading by example and get things out of the mud.

i'm an extreme moderate. best of luck to Obama, and i will miss Bush as well.

 

[Lizard Of Oz]

thats not being objective. if that was bush you would likely be laughing and using that to further paint him as an idiot. being independent and objective as best i can, you can obviously see that John Roberts was stating too much of the oath at a time which threw him off like you said. completely understandable.

It's not that Robert read it too fast, too slow, in too large of chunks or too small of chunks, Roberts simply read it wrong. Obama had it memorized as written and when Roberts strayed for the written word, it threw him off, as it would anybody.

 

[Lizard Of Oz]

Well, those actually are good things in general, however I don't think the federal government would turn a blind eye if someone was producing any narcotic drug illegally anywhere in the US, so it seems kind of silly to just turn a blind eye to illegal marijuana production. If they are going to make marijuana a medical drug, it should be treated just like any other prescription drug, imo.

It may not seem like it but I support both states rights and ganja legalization. In fact there is bill in California to that right now. It won't happen, but at least we're finally going in the right direction. In Ca. alone it would bring an estimated 1 Billion in tax revenue and save twice as much by the reduced need for law enforcement activities related to the weed #1 cash crop.

 

[Sir_Brizz]

It may not seem like it but I support both states rights and ganja legalization. In fact there is bill in California to that right now. It won't happen, but at least we're finally going in the right direction. In Ca. alone it would bring an estimated 1 Billion in tax revenue and save twice as much by the reduced need for law enforcement activities related to the weed #1 cash crop.

Actually I don't care about Marijuana legalization, it's been used for medicinal purposes for a long time. But I do think it should be a controlled substance, too. It probably shouldn't be legal to grow marijuana in your closet even if it is legalized for medicinal purposes.

 

[KaiserWarrior]

Actually I don't care about Marijuana legalization, it's been used for medicinal purposes for a long time. But I do think it should be a controlled substance, too. It probably shouldn't be legal to grow marijuana in your closet even if it is legalized for medicinal purposes.

Do you also believe Alcohol should be a controlled substance?

 

[Sir_Brizz]

Do you also believe Alcohol should be a controlled substance?

It is illegal to brew Alcohol in your garage, so to the extent I'm concerned about it already is.