4 ms·

I simply don't understand how we managed to justify this patent and intellectual property mess in the capitalist system. Capitalism is all about competition and

I simply don't understand how we managed to justify this patent and intellectual property mess in the capitalist system. Capitalism is all about competition and the right to choose the better product, whereas the current system encourages monopoly. I don't understand.

grawprog 7y ago
Because actual capitalism was co-opted a long time ago by large powerful corporations who don't like to lose and have the money to stifle human creativity and general societial progress by lobbying authorities to ensure they never lose.
- MrsPeaches 7y ago
  I had written a whole comment about this but paused and did some research. Very interesting to read about the origins of patents. Not what I expected! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statute_of_Monopolies https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statute_of_Monopolies https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Venetian_Patent_Statute https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Venetian_Patent_Statute https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Letters_patent https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Letters_patent https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Filippo_Brunelleschi#An_innovative_boat https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Filippo_Brunelleschi#An_innova...
  - pnw_hazor 7y ago
    The US Const. was unique in that it called for IP rights to vest in the individual inventors/creators. This was done deliberately in the time when kings could grant patents to anyone they choose. Unfortunately, this US rule was significantly weakened by the America Invents Act (2011). The AIA, among other things, changed US law to a first-to-file scheme rather than a first-to-invent scheme. This change favors big corps because they tend to file patents early before public disclosure of the inventions.
joshmarlow 7y ago
My first thought is that this perspective is conflating Capitalism with a Free Market. Free Markets are about competition and consumer rights. Capitalism - from what I've read - is about a minority having the decision making power with regards to capital allocation. So the USA has a free market system ran by capitalists. I would argue that IP laws can be favorable from the perspective of Capitalism but not the Free Market. The capitalists own the patents and have the wealth to _incentivize_ the law makers to make IP protection laws.
- sandov 7y ago
  Not even Marx uses that definition of capitalism. Capitalism, as defined by communists is about the "private ownership of the means of production". The term has now been widely adopted, even by its defenders, although we don't care specifically about the means of production, we defend property whenever it enhances the freedom of the human individual (an abstract individual, not any specific person). Intellectual "property" doesn't enhance freedom in any way. Most libertarians and philosophical defenders of capitalism agree with me on this (except Ayn Rand fans)
  - joshmarlow 7y ago
    Thanks for the response - I'm pretty new to the literature so I'm happy to have corrections! I might be lacking some nuance here, but "private ownership of the means of production" sounds equivalent to my statement about making decisions about capital allocation, in that the means of production is one form of capital. Not trying to be pedantic, just looking to understand the difference :)
- Nerevarine76 7y ago
  That would be more of an oligopoly. Capitalism and free markets are more or less the same thing. However certain forms of regulation and lobbying can result in oligopies also known as 'crony capitalism'.
  - orwin 7y ago
    No. Free markets are theorized in liberalism, capitalism is just a nice way to says that companies belong to people who bought the tools, not peopl who operate them. You can have a communist liberalism (the "liberal anarchism described by Decoeur is pretty close to that), or (better) something in between like in germany or sweeden and Denmark with 33% of the voting power is given to employees, with an annual prime given to them depending on reversed dividends. Germany have a free market but is not a 100% capitalist country.
jl6 7y ago
The big Isms don’t exist in the real world - every country is a mixed economy to a greater or lesser degree. IP is a bargain between state and author. The state agrees to let the author charge rent on their IP for a limited period of time, thus incentivizing the creation of that IP. In return, the public gets to enjoy that IP’s existence - and eventually enjoy it for free. How long should the limit be? Here lies the debate. The longer the period, the greater the incentive to invest in production of the IP. For example, a movie studio spends $300m+ on a movie because they expect to gain that back via an income stream that lasts for many decades. If their period of protection was only, say, 5 years, their return on investment would be less and thus the investment amount would be less. So one way to think about the copyright protection length is to ask: do we want to live in a world where investing $300m+ in a movie is a rational thing to do, or would we be content with movies costing no more than $30m, or $3m? Sure, celebrities are paid too much, but for some variation of this argument you may agree that reduced copyright terms limit the type of movies that can be made. You can substitute movies for pharmaceuticals if you like - longer patent terms mean a bigger payoff for investing in new medical research. Tweak patent length and you change what drugs exist. I personally disagree with the patentability of some things (like software), and with the length of copyright, but I also like that movies like, say, Lord of the Rings exist, so it’s not a trivial issue for me. I want a healthy public domain but I also would be sad if the Bakshi LOTR version was all we ever had.
- pixelbash 7y ago
  Unfortunately though it's no longer a bargain between state and individual inventors for the most part. From what ive gathered it is no longer a system that can be used meaningfully by you or me, either to get a useful patent or to enforce an infringed one.
- greiskul 7y ago
  But copyright is not 5 years right now, it's 70 years after the death of the creator. You say the longer the period, the greater the incentive to invest, but there are definitely diminishing returns there. Does anyone actually believe we would have greater investment if it was 80 years? Or 90 years? Maybe it should be 300 years, for all those companies looking for investments that take centuries to be realized. And look at all amazing work that has been produced based on public domain works, the Disney movie empire was basically created on it. I think we can pretty much say that yes, reduced copyright terms would increase the types of movies that we see.
2OEH8eoCRo0 7y ago
Regulatory capture
redis_mlc 7y ago
> Capitalism is all about competition I think you missed the memo. Capitalism is about socializing losses, and privatizing profits. It's about building moats to prevent competition. It's about lobbying to raise the drawbridge after you won. That's the reality of US capitalism. If you want to see a billionaire smile, just say "Capitalism is all about competition." I guarantee it will make his day. You might even get a pat on the head!
tsimionescu 6y ago
There is no idealism at the upper level. Capitalism-in-practice is about a single concern: each individual trying to maximize their own wealth. This is especially true for corporate entities, which have a particular kind of single-mindedness, by virtue of not being physical people. Given that observation, it is natural to expect that anything which can maximize the wealth of the most powerful individuals will be adopted into law (since by definition the most powerful are the ones that can influence law making the most). So you have patent laws, you have propaganda and laws against the threat of global warming, you have propaganda and laws against protections from Covid19 etc. Coincidentally, capitalism-in-practice abhors competition. "Competition is for losers" as the old adage goes - the winners are the ones who have no competition at all. Corporations will generally go out of their way to avoid competing directly with other corporations, as that is usually perceived as a race to the bottom for profits and prices. It is often preferred to find separate niches or expand the market rather than going for direct competition, unless one corporation feels like they have a good chance of monopolizing a particular market after they start competing.

grawprog 7y ago

Because actual capitalism was co-opted a long time ago by large powerful corporations who don't like to lose and have the money to stifle human creativity and general societial progress by lobbying authorities to ensure they never lose.

MrsPeaches 7y ago
I had written a whole comment about this but paused and did some research. Very interesting to read about the origins of patents. Not what I expected! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statute_of_Monopolies https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statute_of_Monopolies https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Venetian_Patent_Statute https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Venetian_Patent_Statute https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Letters_patent https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Letters_patent https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Filippo_Brunelleschi#An_innovative_boat https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Filippo_Brunelleschi#An_innova...
- pnw_hazor 7y ago
  The US Const. was unique in that it called for IP rights to vest in the individual inventors/creators. This was done deliberately in the time when kings could grant patents to anyone they choose. Unfortunately, this US rule was significantly weakened by the America Invents Act (2011). The AIA, among other things, changed US law to a first-to-file scheme rather than a first-to-invent scheme. This change favors big corps because they tend to file patents early before public disclosure of the inventions.

joshmarlow 7y ago

My first thought is that this perspective is conflating Capitalism with a Free Market. Free Markets are about competition and consumer rights. Capitalism - from what I've read - is about a minority having the decision making power with regards to capital allocation. So the USA has a free market system ran by capitalists. I would argue that IP laws can be favorable from the perspective of Capitalism but not the Free Market. The capitalists own the patents and have the wealth to _incentivize_ the law makers to make IP protection laws.

sandov 7y ago
Not even Marx uses that definition of capitalism. Capitalism, as defined by communists is about the "private ownership of the means of production". The term has now been widely adopted, even by its defenders, although we don't care specifically about the means of production, we defend property whenever it enhances the freedom of the human individual (an abstract individual, not any specific person). Intellectual "property" doesn't enhance freedom in any way. Most libertarians and philosophical defenders of capitalism agree with me on this (except Ayn Rand fans)
- joshmarlow 7y ago
  Thanks for the response - I'm pretty new to the literature so I'm happy to have corrections! I might be lacking some nuance here, but "private ownership of the means of production" sounds equivalent to my statement about making decisions about capital allocation, in that the means of production is one form of capital. Not trying to be pedantic, just looking to understand the difference :)
Nerevarine76 7y ago
That would be more of an oligopoly. Capitalism and free markets are more or less the same thing. However certain forms of regulation and lobbying can result in oligopies also known as 'crony capitalism'.
- orwin 7y ago
  No. Free markets are theorized in liberalism, capitalism is just a nice way to says that companies belong to people who bought the tools, not peopl who operate them. You can have a communist liberalism (the "liberal anarchism described by Decoeur is pretty close to that), or (better) something in between like in germany or sweeden and Denmark with 33% of the voting power is given to employees, with an annual prime given to them depending on reversed dividends. Germany have a free market but is not a 100% capitalist country.

jl6 7y ago

The big Isms don’t exist in the real world - every country is a mixed economy to a greater or lesser degree. IP is a bargain between state and author. The state agrees to let the author charge rent on their IP for a limited period of time, thus incentivizing the creation of that IP. In return, the public gets to enjoy that IP’s existence - and eventually enjoy it for free. How long should the limit be? Here lies the debate. The longer the period, the greater the incentive to invest in production of the IP. For example, a movie studio spends $300m+ on a movie because they expect to gain that back via an income stream that lasts for many decades. If their period of protection was only, say, 5 years, their return on investment would be less and thus the investment amount would be less. So one way to think about the copyright protection length is to ask: do we want to live in a world where investing $300m+ in a movie is a rational thing to do, or would we be content with movies costing no more than $30m, or $3m? Sure, celebrities are paid too much, but for some variation of this argument you may agree that reduced copyright terms limit the type of movies that can be made. You can substitute movies for pharmaceuticals if you like - longer patent terms mean a bigger payoff for investing in new medical research. Tweak patent length and you change what drugs exist. I personally disagree with the patentability of some things (like software), and with the length of copyright, but I also like that movies like, say, Lord of the Rings exist, so it’s not a trivial issue for me. I want a healthy public domain but I also would be sad if the Bakshi LOTR version was all we ever had.

pixelbash 7y ago
Unfortunately though it's no longer a bargain between state and individual inventors for the most part. From what ive gathered it is no longer a system that can be used meaningfully by you or me, either to get a useful patent or to enforce an infringed one.
greiskul 7y ago
But copyright is not 5 years right now, it's 70 years after the death of the creator. You say the longer the period, the greater the incentive to invest, but there are definitely diminishing returns there. Does anyone actually believe we would have greater investment if it was 80 years? Or 90 years? Maybe it should be 300 years, for all those companies looking for investments that take centuries to be realized. And look at all amazing work that has been produced based on public domain works, the Disney movie empire was basically created on it. I think we can pretty much say that yes, reduced copyright terms would increase the types of movies that we see.

2OEH8eoCRo0 7y ago

Regulatory capture

redis_mlc 7y ago

> Capitalism is all about competition I think you missed the memo. Capitalism is about socializing losses, and privatizing profits. It's about building moats to prevent competition. It's about lobbying to raise the drawbridge after you won. That's the reality of US capitalism. If you want to see a billionaire smile, just say "Capitalism is all about competition." I guarantee it will make his day. You might even get a pat on the head!

tsimionescu 6y ago

There is no idealism at the upper level. Capitalism-in-practice is about a single concern: each individual trying to maximize their own wealth. This is especially true for corporate entities, which have a particular kind of single-mindedness, by virtue of not being physical people. Given that observation, it is natural to expect that anything which can maximize the wealth of the most powerful individuals will be adopted into law (since by definition the most powerful are the ones that can influence law making the most). So you have patent laws, you have propaganda and laws against the threat of global warming, you have propaganda and laws against protections from Covid19 etc. Coincidentally, capitalism-in-practice abhors competition. "Competition is for losers" as the old adage goes - the winners are the ones who have no competition at all. Corporations will generally go out of their way to avoid competing directly with other corporations, as that is usually perceived as a race to the bottom for profits and prices. It is often preferred to find separate niches or expand the market rather than going for direct competition, unless one corporation feels like they have a good chance of monopolizing a particular market after they start competing.