3 ms·

> The fact that you casually lump them together suggests that you don't understand what you're even arguing against. On the contrary, the fact you don't see ho

by breck 4y ago

> The fact that you casually lump them together suggests that you don't understand what you're even arguing against. On the contrary, the fact you don't see how they both are at play suggests the opposite. Patented drugs are always inferior, but the truth has a hard time getting out due to (c)opywrong laws. (https://longbets.org/855/ https://longbets.org/855/) > Alright I'll bite. Can you elaborate on how they're "worse than useless"? Follow this $1M bet for the truth: https://blog.rootclaim.com/rootclaim-accepts-500000-challenge-on-covid-vaccine-safety-efficacy/ https://blog.rootclaim.com/rootclaim-accepts-500000-challeng... >> Public domain has given us 99% of life saving medicines > And how many of those were patented at one point? None. Very few of the most critical medicines are modern inventions. And the ones that are patented aren't still made, because you can alway assume the patented version of a drug is the worse version of said drug (a patent encourages stagnasis and disincentivizes shipping an improved, non-patented version). Most life saving medicines were figured out by people far before patents. Humans made it out of the forest and figured out what plants and animal products will sustain you, heal you, and kill you, all without the aid of lawyers nor a patent system. The idea that people wouldn't try to invent new life saving medicines unless they had some bizarre legal system that grants a monopoly is one of the stupidest positions I've ever heard. The incentive is if you invent such a medicine you don't die, or your kids don't die, or your family doesn't die, or your friends don't die. There are no stronger incentives than those. > not patentable. From wikipedia: But they were (c)opyrightable. I have an original 1920 first edition copy of Albert Einstein's Theory of Relativity and he put it in the public domain.

gruez 4y ago
>On the contrary, the fact you don't see how they both are at play suggests the opposite Doing a quick skim of the linked article, the basis of argument seems to be: "copyright laws protecting Purdue from true and damaging information about the dangers of the medication from leaking and spreading" Which, so far as I can tell has nothing backing it. Do you mind elaborating what specific aspect of copyright law hindered the public from learning about the "dangers of the medication"? >Follow this $1M bet for the truth: https://blog.rootclaim.com/rootclaim-accepts-500000-challeng https://blog.rootclaim.com/rootclaim-accepts-500000-challeng... I don't get it. The source you linked is arguing for the opposite (ie. "we conclude that despite several shortcomings, mRNA vaccines have saved many more lives than they cost"). Regardless, neither the the source you linked nor Kirsch's substack contains any evidence, so it's impossible to evaluate either side's claims. >None. Very few of the most critical medicines are modern inventions. [...] Ah, so your claim is that if something's gone off patent, then it's in the public domain. I don't object to that characterization, but I have the following follow up questions: 1. going back to your claim of "Public domain has given us 99% of life saving medicines", is it also accurate to say "public domain has given us 99% of life destroying toxins (eg. oxycontin or leaded gas)" since those products have gone off patent and are therefore in the public domain as well? 2. perhaps my original question wasn't clear, but the standard argument for patents is that if it weren't for patents, then the life saving medication wouldn't exist in the first place, or would exist but would be delayed for decades/centuries. Declaring that "Public domain has given us 99% of life saving medicines" after they've been developed under a legal regime with patent protection ignores this. >But they were (c)opyrightable. I have an original 1920 first edition copy of Albert Einstein's Theory of Relativity and he put it in the public domain. Again, this is a misunderstanding of how copyrights/patents work. The exact manuscript that Einstein wrote might be copyrightable, but the abstract concepts (eg. e=mc^2) were not. Even if Einstein didn't put it into the public domain, he wouldn't be able to hold a monopoly on the theory of relativity, only his specific manuscript discussing it. Likewise, I can write a book about the Theory of Relativity right now and it would get copyright protection, but that doesn't mean I can charge people for using e=mc^2. It just means people can't copy the contents of my book.
- Dalewyn 4y ago
  >I can write a book about the Theory of Relativity right now and it would get copyright protection, but that doesn't mean I can charge people for using e=mc^2. It just means people can't copy the contents of my book. Another, simpler way to describe this is: Disney can copyright Mickey Mouse, but Disney can't copyright the concept of an anthropomorphized mouse.
- breck 4y ago
  > Again, this is a misunderstanding of how copyrights/patents work. The exact manuscript that Einstein wrote might be copyrightable, You can assume I know everything about how copyright and patent works. I wrote a book on it in the 2000's. I also was a silent coauthor on many patent applications (for an anti-patent troll group). I agree it wasn't extremely clear that I was referring to this book: https://www.abebooks.com/servlet/SearchResults?an=Albert+Einstein&bi=0&bx=off&ds=30&fe=on&recentlyadded=all&sortby=1&sts=t&tn=Relativity&x=74&y=8&yrh=1920&yrl=1920 https://www.abebooks.com/servlet/SearchResults?an=Albert+Ein... which I own and I can assure you is in public domain as there are no (c) symbols anywhere, which was a requirement back then (not sure if you knew that?? :P ). > Which, so far as I can tell has nothing backing it. Do you mind elaborating what specific aspect of copyright law hindered the public from learning about the "dangers of the medication"? The "media" in this country is controlled and easily bought, because of (c)opyright law which bans most peer 2 peer publishing. Hence, Purdue only has to pay off a few actors to ensure its lies, and not the truth, was the message that got out. >> Follow this $1M bet for the truth: > I don't get it. The debate hasn't happened yet. It's set to happen in February, I believe. It will be the most definitive yet on the net benefit or net harm of the vaccine. > Ah, so your claim is that if something's gone off patent, then it's in the public domain My claim is that there are 2 eras in civilization: pre-patent era and post-patent era. Almost all key medicines and inventions in life come from the former era. People never have and never will needs patents to have incentives to innovate. The only group that benefits, are lawyers, who are unable to create value themselves, so have injected themselves as middle men and merely make everything worse for everyone else. Patents are a negative sum game. All they do is destroy economic value and productivity, to deliver revenue to hack lawyers.
  - 4y ago

by breck 4y ago

gruez 4y ago

>On the contrary, the fact you don't see how they both are at play suggests the opposite Doing a quick skim of the linked article, the basis of argument seems to be: "copyright laws protecting Purdue from true and damaging information about the dangers of the medication from leaking and spreading" Which, so far as I can tell has nothing backing it. Do you mind elaborating what specific aspect of copyright law hindered the public from learning about the "dangers of the medication"? >Follow this $1M bet for the truth: https://blog.rootclaim.com/rootclaim-accepts-500000-challeng https://blog.rootclaim.com/rootclaim-accepts-500000-challeng... I don't get it. The source you linked is arguing for the opposite (ie. "we conclude that despite several shortcomings, mRNA vaccines have saved many more lives than they cost"). Regardless, neither the the source you linked nor Kirsch's substack contains any evidence, so it's impossible to evaluate either side's claims. >None. Very few of the most critical medicines are modern inventions. [...] Ah, so your claim is that if something's gone off patent, then it's in the public domain. I don't object to that characterization, but I have the following follow up questions: 1. going back to your claim of "Public domain has given us 99% of life saving medicines", is it also accurate to say "public domain has given us 99% of life destroying toxins (eg. oxycontin or leaded gas)" since those products have gone off patent and are therefore in the public domain as well? 2. perhaps my original question wasn't clear, but the standard argument for patents is that if it weren't for patents, then the life saving medication wouldn't exist in the first place, or would exist but would be delayed for decades/centuries. Declaring that "Public domain has given us 99% of life saving medicines" after they've been developed under a legal regime with patent protection ignores this. >But they were (c)opyrightable. I have an original 1920 first edition copy of Albert Einstein's Theory of Relativity and he put it in the public domain. Again, this is a misunderstanding of how copyrights/patents work. The exact manuscript that Einstein wrote might be copyrightable, but the abstract concepts (eg. e=mc^2) were not. Even if Einstein didn't put it into the public domain, he wouldn't be able to hold a monopoly on the theory of relativity, only his specific manuscript discussing it. Likewise, I can write a book about the Theory of Relativity right now and it would get copyright protection, but that doesn't mean I can charge people for using e=mc^2. It just means people can't copy the contents of my book.

Dalewyn 4y ago
>I can write a book about the Theory of Relativity right now and it would get copyright protection, but that doesn't mean I can charge people for using e=mc^2. It just means people can't copy the contents of my book. Another, simpler way to describe this is: Disney can copyright Mickey Mouse, but Disney can't copyright the concept of an anthropomorphized mouse.
breck 4y ago
> Again, this is a misunderstanding of how copyrights/patents work. The exact manuscript that Einstein wrote might be copyrightable, You can assume I know everything about how copyright and patent works. I wrote a book on it in the 2000's. I also was a silent coauthor on many patent applications (for an anti-patent troll group). I agree it wasn't extremely clear that I was referring to this book: https://www.abebooks.com/servlet/SearchResults?an=Albert+Einstein&bi=0&bx=off&ds=30&fe=on&recentlyadded=all&sortby=1&sts=t&tn=Relativity&x=74&y=8&yrh=1920&yrl=1920 https://www.abebooks.com/servlet/SearchResults?an=Albert+Ein... which I own and I can assure you is in public domain as there are no (c) symbols anywhere, which was a requirement back then (not sure if you knew that?? :P ). > Which, so far as I can tell has nothing backing it. Do you mind elaborating what specific aspect of copyright law hindered the public from learning about the "dangers of the medication"? The "media" in this country is controlled and easily bought, because of (c)opyright law which bans most peer 2 peer publishing. Hence, Purdue only has to pay off a few actors to ensure its lies, and not the truth, was the message that got out. >> Follow this $1M bet for the truth: > I don't get it. The debate hasn't happened yet. It's set to happen in February, I believe. It will be the most definitive yet on the net benefit or net harm of the vaccine. > Ah, so your claim is that if something's gone off patent, then it's in the public domain My claim is that there are 2 eras in civilization: pre-patent era and post-patent era. Almost all key medicines and inventions in life come from the former era. People never have and never will needs patents to have incentives to innovate. The only group that benefits, are lawyers, who are unable to create value themselves, so have injected themselves as middle men and merely make everything worse for everyone else. Patents are a negative sum game. All they do is destroy economic value and productivity, to deliver revenue to hack lawyers.
- 4y ago