Josh in CharlotteNC (profile), 12 Jun 2012 @ 10:18am
Re: Re: Re: Re:
They really aren't competitors, because that would suggest they are doing the same sort of things.
Aren't they both making and selling pharmaceuticals?
The Chinese companies are just waiting for the US company to spend the money to develop the product, and then they turn around and make a "generic" for it without needing much research at all.
Aren't most of the products US pharma companies end up producing based on research from universities and grants funded by our tax dollars? I'll admit that the pharma companies do spend some money in bringing them to market, but their costs are not on the order of the hundreds of millions of dollars we see claimed in reports.
American consumers care when they stop being able to get new drugs, when research slows, or when they are entirely depending on a third world country for their meds.
I'm perfectly willing to take the chance on the highly improbable chance of those happening by getting rid of patents.
Luckily, since the pharma companies aren't funding most the research, it will not slow. Thus, new drugs will come out, possibly at a faster pace due to researchers not afraid of being sued for patent infringement. And without patents, we won't be dependant on a third world country, since if there's a need for a drug, anyone who can make it can do so.
Josh in CharlotteNC (profile), 12 Jun 2012 @ 10:00am
Re: Re: Random Thought
That's the problem. The money is found in getting the loopholes into laws, so someone can exploit it. So even if there are government paid watchdog lawyers, they'll likely only catch the most egregious loopholes. And even if they find them, the elected politicians would still be the ones "fixing" and passing the laws - unless you plan on major structural changes to Article One of the Constitution, or violently overthrowing the government and writing a new one.
Josh in CharlotteNC (profile), 12 Jun 2012 @ 7:04am
Re: Re:
American consumers should be very upset about this move, as it is the Chinese companies who have profited from the sale of the raw materials and have used the money to build their generic drug infrastructure, and now they are able to take the drugs created in other countries and use them at a fraction of the price.
So, American pharma companies, in an effort to reduce their costs (and increase their profits), outsourced their supply chain to China. In doing so, they literally paid to jump start their competitors, who are now able to make similar quality products at lower prices. And the pharma companies will no longer be able to sell their overpriced products to generate obscene profits. Really, who couldn't have seen this coming?
Why should we be upset by this? You think American consumers care that much about the healthy profit margins of Pfizer, Merck and Eli Lilly? I think consumers care more about being able to afford medicine. With the rising costs of healthcare, I doubt many will shed a tear over lost theoretical future profits of some companies who are widely seen as gouging their customers.
Josh in CharlotteNC (profile), 11 Jun 2012 @ 12:20pm
Re: Re: Re: What would be an appropriate mechanism?
The way the law works is that if a criminal website targets US consumers then it's subject to US jurisdiction.
Please explain how this applies to Rojadirecta.
Come on, these websites located in Eastern Europe are in English and their offerings are denominated in US dollars. It's not like they're targeting Latvia.
You have no idea what you're talking about.
Some (not all) of the sites are in English because much of the world speaks it - so instead of trying to put a site together with 6 different languages, it is easier to do it in English. Many international businesses do meetings in English for the same reason, even if it is not the primary language of any of the participants.
Same with US dollars - and most sites I've seen have prices in both Euros and USD. Of course, I thought we were talking about pirate sites which gave stuff away for free. Which is it?
You can't believe that is it fair to compete in the US market and not be subject to the same rules as everyone else do you?
Interesting comment coming from someone who seems to be on the side that doesn't think the laws of economics apply to them.
As far as the .com issue, that's pretty well settled. If you use a US based registry then you're subject to US law.
If you're going to go and make a wild claim that this is settled law, you better be able to site some cases and precedents.
Josh in CharlotteNC (profile), 11 Jun 2012 @ 10:50am
Re: Well, you asked.
Until fairly recently, nearly all diamond production was controlled by a cartel.
Kind of like how most mass entertainment was before the internet.
Not really all that surprising that monopolies want to keep their prices high, even if it means somewhat lower total profits. They would rather have a stagnant market where they don't need to compete, or one where they can ruthlessly destroy or buy out any competition that emerges, so they can sit back and continue raking in stable profits without really changing anything.
Josh in CharlotteNC (profile), 11 Jun 2012 @ 9:32am
Re: Re: Re: Reasons why we are doomed as a country
Shotguns and rifles cannot beat tanks, aircraft carriers, and bombers.
This country was formed by a rebellion that was outmatched, outgunned, and outmanned by the British armies and navies.
How many US soldiers were killed in Iraq fighting insurgents with little more than rifles and improvised explosives?
Libya's revolution was kicked off by one guy setting himself on fire - and there were tanks and aircraft on the other side. Egpyt's regime was brought down by a mostly peaceful protest against the side with all the tanks and guns.
History is littered with countries, empires, and regimes that were brought down by internal dissent.
Josh in CharlotteNC (profile), 11 Jun 2012 @ 9:18am
Re: What would be an appropriate mechanism?
Should a web site owner be forced to travel to the United States, hire a lawyer and defend themselves?
Why should a foreign website owner be subject to US laws, or the possibility of the US government seizing their domain name? Just having a .com domain absolutely should not bind someone elsewhere into the laws of a country on the other side of the world.
More generally to your question - the government should stay the hell away from anything to do with copyright infringement - it is a civil dispute between a copyright holder and the alleged infringer.
Josh in CharlotteNC (profile), 8 Jun 2012 @ 11:02am
Re: Re: Re: Re: From the IP Madhouse
However, you have to accept that they would be less organized, less well stocked, would have more food rotting for lack of buyers, and the check out process would be back to the 60s (you know, girls at cash registers pushing buttons and clicking "add", which prints it to the tape and adds it to the total). Oh, and all your stuff would be more expensive, because they wouldn't be able to control inventory very well.
I "have to" accept that? Says who? Show me the evidence.
No more being polite. That is complete and utter bullshit.
IP is an integral part of the economy, because it allows for incredible levels of efficiency that cannot be reached by other means. The grocery business, with it's razor thin margins, needs IP to be able to survive in the marketplace.
You really are full of it. Grocery stores have razor thin margins, and thus strive for efficiency because of competition, not because some magical IP fairy hands out monopolies to get them to do better.
Josh in CharlotteNC (profile), 8 Jun 2012 @ 7:04am
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
yet they are all depending on IP to make a living.
Lets assume that copyright and patent law were completely abolished.
Please tell me exactly how it would impact those workers and prevent them from making a living.
The car salesman would still be selling cars, because people still need to buy cars to get around.
The machanic would still be fixing cars, because cars break and need to be repaired.
The assembly line worker would still be assembling cars for the same reason the salesman is selling them.
The accounting guy would still be sitting in his office, signing paychecks to all of the above.
Again, your definition of someone who is dependant on IP is so overly broad that it applies to everyone and is thus meaningless. That you are still clinging to it shows who the one is that needs to open their eyes.
Josh in CharlotteNC (profile), 7 Jun 2012 @ 1:51pm
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Is trademark not IP?
The problem is the term "IP" - which is a completely artificial and only recently made up grouping of disparate things.
Patents - protection of inventions
Copyrights - protection of writings, images, sound, etc.
Trademarks - preventing consumer confusion
Yet working every day with IP related products, using IP related software, to sell those IP related products in stories... well, you know the rest.
That is clearly absurd.
By your definition, every single person working in the developed world and much of the rest fall into IP intensive industries.
Car salesman? Yep, he sells trademarked cars.
Mechanic? Yep, he uses trademarked, brand name parts in the car, and uses trademarked tools to install them.
Assembly-line worker? Yep, assembles the car.
Accounting guy in the office? Yep, signs all of the above's paychecks, and uses software that is copyrighted.
Josh in CharlotteNC (profile), 7 Jun 2012 @ 12:21pm
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Wow Josh, hard to argue with you when you want to deny everything.
You have the largest, most intense, raging case of psychological projection ever.
The only thing I'm denying are your completely absurd arguments.
People buy Tylenol because they need medicine. They choose the Tylenol brand because they trust it, yes. They trust that brand because they know that Bob's Aspirin can't go and slap "Tylenol" onto a bottle and sell it. Trademarks are a consumer protection function. Johnson & Johnson doesn't need copyright law to protect the Tylenol brand.
Yes, I can reasonably say that the thousands of Walmart workers using their computer system for inventory/shipping/billing/whatever are not doing IP intensive work. I can also reasonably say that copyright law has little to no impact on the benefit Walmart gets out of their software.
And I'm reasonably certain that just working with a computer every day does not automatically get you lumped into an IP related job by any sane definition thereof.
Josh in CharlotteNC (profile), 7 Jun 2012 @ 12:03pm
Re: Re: Re: Re:
there is no reason to adapt now.
If they want to be alive later, they need to adapt now. Keep making buggy whips while the market is changing, but when figure out how to replace your revenue before everyone stops buying them.
you're a pirate, so you're wrong, and I can't actually respond to the point
Josh in CharlotteNC (profile), 7 Jun 2012 @ 11:49am
Re: Re: Re:
The real question is "How many jobs are related to IP"?
Yes, that's the question, and the answer is: almost none of what the copyright industry claims based on this report (which isn't even supposed to be used for those claims).
Do you think, as an example, that you would have the comparison to Tylenol cold and flu if Tylenol never existed? Would you worry about a Ritz cracker?
Trademark law is a consumer protection law and is vastly different than copyright and patent IP law. And even if you can create some absurd link, protecting Tylenol's trademark has nothing to do with why people buy Tylenol. They buy it because they're sick and need medicine.
Companies like WalMart have invested literally hundreds of millions of dollars into perfecting their distribution and retail methods, shaving margins, and working to assure that consumers get the products they want when they want, where they want, and at a price they can afford. That is all as a result of custom software paid for by the company.
And that right there shows how Walmart has little to do with IP law. They had some software written to lower costs. The point of the software wasn't to sell for profit, it was to make their business better by lowering costs.
Josh in CharlotteNC (profile), 7 Jun 2012 @ 11:31am
Paper counts
Pulp, paper, and paperboard mills,
I don't have an issue calling these dependant on IP. Get rid of IP, and there will be millions of lawyers who won't have to buy paper for the mountains of useless paperwork IP laws generate.
On the post: After India And Brazil, Now China Takes Steps To Allow Cheap Versions Of Patented Drugs
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Aren't they both making and selling pharmaceuticals?
The Chinese companies are just waiting for the US company to spend the money to develop the product, and then they turn around and make a "generic" for it without needing much research at all.
Aren't most of the products US pharma companies end up producing based on research from universities and grants funded by our tax dollars? I'll admit that the pharma companies do spend some money in bringing them to market, but their costs are not on the order of the hundreds of millions of dollars we see claimed in reports.
American consumers care when they stop being able to get new drugs, when research slows, or when they are entirely depending on a third world country for their meds.
I'm perfectly willing to take the chance on the highly improbable chance of those happening by getting rid of patents.
Luckily, since the pharma companies aren't funding most the research, it will not slow. Thus, new drugs will come out, possibly at a faster pace due to researchers not afraid of being sued for patent infringement. And without patents, we won't be dependant on a third world country, since if there's a need for a drug, anyone who can make it can do so.
On the post: Why The Supreme Court Needs To Make Sure That Selling A Used iPad Isn't A Copyright Violation
Re: Re: Random Thought
On the post: After India And Brazil, Now China Takes Steps To Allow Cheap Versions Of Patented Drugs
Re: Re:
So, American pharma companies, in an effort to reduce their costs (and increase their profits), outsourced their supply chain to China. In doing so, they literally paid to jump start their competitors, who are now able to make similar quality products at lower prices. And the pharma companies will no longer be able to sell their overpriced products to generate obscene profits. Really, who couldn't have seen this coming?
Why should we be upset by this? You think American consumers care that much about the healthy profit margins of Pfizer, Merck and Eli Lilly? I think consumers care more about being able to afford medicine. With the rising costs of healthcare, I doubt many will shed a tear over lost theoretical future profits of some companies who are widely seen as gouging their customers.
On the post: After India And Brazil, Now China Takes Steps To Allow Cheap Versions Of Patented Drugs
Re: Re:
On the post: Commerce Department's Own Study Debunks Commerce Department's Defense Of Said Study
Re: Indexed Employment Graph Goes up at the end
On the post: Tell The White House To Stop Illegally Seizing & Shutting Down Websites
Re: Re: Re: What would be an appropriate mechanism?
Please explain how this applies to Rojadirecta.
Come on, these websites located in Eastern Europe are in English and their offerings are denominated in US dollars. It's not like they're targeting Latvia.
You have no idea what you're talking about.
Some (not all) of the sites are in English because much of the world speaks it - so instead of trying to put a site together with 6 different languages, it is easier to do it in English. Many international businesses do meetings in English for the same reason, even if it is not the primary language of any of the participants.
Same with US dollars - and most sites I've seen have prices in both Euros and USD. Of course, I thought we were talking about pirate sites which gave stuff away for free. Which is it?
You can't believe that is it fair to compete in the US market and not be subject to the same rules as everyone else do you?
Interesting comment coming from someone who seems to be on the side that doesn't think the laws of economics apply to them.
As far as the .com issue, that's pretty well settled. If you use a US based registry then you're subject to US law.
If you're going to go and make a wild claim that this is settled law, you better be able to site some cases and precedents.
On the post: EA Believes That Making A Lot Of Money Is Less Important Than Keeping Games Expensive
Re: simple psychology
You have a link or more details? That sounds fascinating and I'd love to read about it.
On the post: EA Believes That Making A Lot Of Money Is Less Important Than Keeping Games Expensive
Re: Well, you asked.
Kind of like how most mass entertainment was before the internet.
Not really all that surprising that monopolies want to keep their prices high, even if it means somewhat lower total profits. They would rather have a stagnant market where they don't need to compete, or one where they can ruthlessly destroy or buy out any competition that emerges, so they can sit back and continue raking in stable profits without really changing anything.
On the post: Tell The White House To Stop Illegally Seizing & Shutting Down Websites
Re: Petition Not there
On the post: Tell The White House To Stop Illegally Seizing & Shutting Down Websites
Re: Re: Re: Reasons why we are doomed as a country
This country was formed by a rebellion that was outmatched, outgunned, and outmanned by the British armies and navies.
How many US soldiers were killed in Iraq fighting insurgents with little more than rifles and improvised explosives?
Libya's revolution was kicked off by one guy setting himself on fire - and there were tanks and aircraft on the other side. Egpyt's regime was brought down by a mostly peaceful protest against the side with all the tanks and guns.
History is littered with countries, empires, and regimes that were brought down by internal dissent.
On the post: Tell The White House To Stop Illegally Seizing & Shutting Down Websites
Re: What would be an appropriate mechanism?
Why should a foreign website owner be subject to US laws, or the possibility of the US government seizing their domain name? Just having a .com domain absolutely should not bind someone elsewhere into the laws of a country on the other side of the world.
More generally to your question - the government should stay the hell away from anything to do with copyright infringement - it is a civil dispute between a copyright holder and the alleged infringer.
On the post: The Sweet Taste Of Defeat: Band Must Pay Legal Fees For Frivolous Lawsuit Over One Used CD On eBay
Most
Except the US.
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20101213/09353512255/supreme-court-ruling-you-may-not-be-able- to-legally-sell-product-first-made-outside-us.shtml
On the post: Feds Say We Need Stronger IP Laws Because Grocery Stores Employ Lots Of People
Re: Re: Re: Re: From the IP Madhouse
I "have to" accept that? Says who? Show me the evidence.
No more being polite. That is complete and utter bullshit.
IP is an integral part of the economy, because it allows for incredible levels of efficiency that cannot be reached by other means. The grocery business, with it's razor thin margins, needs IP to be able to survive in the marketplace.
You really are full of it. Grocery stores have razor thin margins, and thus strive for efficiency because of competition, not because some magical IP fairy hands out monopolies to get them to do better.
On the post: Feds Say We Need Stronger IP Laws Because Grocery Stores Employ Lots Of People
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Lets assume that copyright and patent law were completely abolished.
Please tell me exactly how it would impact those workers and prevent them from making a living.
The car salesman would still be selling cars, because people still need to buy cars to get around.
The machanic would still be fixing cars, because cars break and need to be repaired.
The assembly line worker would still be assembling cars for the same reason the salesman is selling them.
The accounting guy would still be sitting in his office, signing paychecks to all of the above.
Again, your definition of someone who is dependant on IP is so overly broad that it applies to everyone and is thus meaningless. That you are still clinging to it shows who the one is that needs to open their eyes.
On the post: Feds Say We Need Stronger IP Laws Because Grocery Stores Employ Lots Of People
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
The problem is the term "IP" - which is a completely artificial and only recently made up grouping of disparate things.
Patents - protection of inventions
Copyrights - protection of writings, images, sound, etc.
Trademarks - preventing consumer confusion
Yet working every day with IP related products, using IP related software, to sell those IP related products in stories... well, you know the rest.
That is clearly absurd.
By your definition, every single person working in the developed world and much of the rest fall into IP intensive industries.
Car salesman? Yep, he sells trademarked cars.
Mechanic? Yep, he uses trademarked, brand name parts in the car, and uses trademarked tools to install them.
Assembly-line worker? Yep, assembles the car.
Accounting guy in the office? Yep, signs all of the above's paychecks, and uses software that is copyrighted.
On the post: Feds Say We Need Stronger IP Laws Because Grocery Stores Employ Lots Of People
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
You have the largest, most intense, raging case of psychological projection ever.
The only thing I'm denying are your completely absurd arguments.
People buy Tylenol because they need medicine. They choose the Tylenol brand because they trust it, yes. They trust that brand because they know that Bob's Aspirin can't go and slap "Tylenol" onto a bottle and sell it. Trademarks are a consumer protection function. Johnson & Johnson doesn't need copyright law to protect the Tylenol brand.
Yes, I can reasonably say that the thousands of Walmart workers using their computer system for inventory/shipping/billing/whatever are not doing IP intensive work. I can also reasonably say that copyright law has little to no impact on the benefit Walmart gets out of their software.
And I'm reasonably certain that just working with a computer every day does not automatically get you lumped into an IP related job by any sane definition thereof.
On the post: Correction: Earn My Money, HBO
Re: Re: Re: Re:
If they want to be alive later, they need to adapt now. Keep making buggy whips while the market is changing, but when figure out how to replace your revenue before everyone stops buying them.
you're a pirate, so you're wrong, and I can't actually respond to the point
What a compelling argument. /s
On the post: Feds Say We Need Stronger IP Laws Because Grocery Stores Employ Lots Of People
Re: Re: Re:
Yes, that's the question, and the answer is: almost none of what the copyright industry claims based on this report (which isn't even supposed to be used for those claims).
Do you think, as an example, that you would have the comparison to Tylenol cold and flu if Tylenol never existed? Would you worry about a Ritz cracker?
Trademark law is a consumer protection law and is vastly different than copyright and patent IP law. And even if you can create some absurd link, protecting Tylenol's trademark has nothing to do with why people buy Tylenol. They buy it because they're sick and need medicine.
Companies like WalMart have invested literally hundreds of millions of dollars into perfecting their distribution and retail methods, shaving margins, and working to assure that consumers get the products they want when they want, where they want, and at a price they can afford. That is all as a result of custom software paid for by the company.
And that right there shows how Walmart has little to do with IP law. They had some software written to lower costs. The point of the software wasn't to sell for profit, it was to make their business better by lowering costs.
On the post: Feds Say We Need Stronger IP Laws Because Grocery Stores Employ Lots Of People
Re: Re:
On the post: Feds Say We Need Stronger IP Laws Because Grocery Stores Employ Lots Of People
Paper counts
I don't have an issue calling these dependant on IP. Get rid of IP, and there will be millions of lawyers who won't have to buy paper for the mountains of useless paperwork IP laws generate.
Next >>