Intellectual Property Question

[pilatech]

Just a thought I had before the 4 minute mark, it doesn't actually take money to do cancer research, it takes researchers. It does take money if you want to create an industry out of it and have people derive their livelihoods solely from doing such research. But seriously, if we could cure cancer and just don't because potentially saving our own lives or very likely the lives of someone we know and love, isn't enough incentive, if we're at the point as a species where no one will do it...

[pilatech]

unless they're going to get money for doing so. Then kind of just screw us, we probably deserve to die of cancer if that's the position we take.

[LibertarianOnline]

universities would probably develop some drugs for prestige etc...

[Salocin27]

donations?

[truthadvocate]

Great subject. #1 without FDA, developing drugs will be cheaper. #2 production will reflect true demand - a good thing. #3 voluntary contracts between drug developers, manufacturers, distributors, retailers & consumers can all promise to not reverse engineer the drug & to provide the drug only under IP contract. #4 When a generic is released, a detective can retrace the path to the person that broke the contract. #5 despite generics, being first to market is still valuable in terms of branding.

[MyITRcom]

Thanks for point out how the FDA is what is causing the problem.

Jim

[billyjoeallen]

So what if there is less of a profit incentive to develop medicine in Ancapistan? There is still a huge incentive left, and that reason is disease. You seem to be implying that non-profits would go away if the competitive advantage of their tax-exempt status goes away. If they truly are organizations established for a non-profit reason, they will still exist. Many of those NPOs will develop medicine. The net effect will be positive as there will be wider dissemination of the developed medicine

[whichuniverse]

Lets be clear on the difference between anarchy and Libertarian. I got really excited about libertarian once I watched enough of Milton Friedman, plenty of him here on UTube. Your argumentation, although a little unstructured, is reasonable and you hit on good points on many sides of the coin. Keep it up.

[ybworld]

Without IP, that just means that the price of the medicine would be equal to the value of the medicine to the patient, until someone else could copy the medicine. It also means the person making the medicine would have to invest in knowing who his or her customer is, rather than selling through 3rd, 4th, 5th, 105387545th parties as the current system is. Conceivably, there could be ZERO reverse engineering as sellers could ONLY sell medicine to sick people under contract, through doctors.

[NoCryingNowYes]

[2] It's not true that if research is not profit based it will not be useful. Look at wikipedia.

It would be lovely for charity to be profitable, then we'd have much more charity, and more effective ones too. But it just isn't. If we create the profitability in charity by adding aggression, we've corrupted something good and productive and turned it into something evil and unproductive.

[NoCryingNowYes]

When someone has an idea because they've read your book, you don't own that idea in their minds. It would be impossible to pretend that you do. In fact, all ideas, and especially scientific ideas, are built upon other ideas. We consider all the knowledge we have and produce new, deeper understanding.

If the market can find a non-aggressive way of ensuring the secrecy of their R&D, by all means, but the lack of such a method does not justify aggression.

[Sepero1]

video. google. com/videoplay?docid=2802629882­55234681&hl=en

[ybworld]

This video is gone...what was the title?

[ybworld]

nm, found it

[Sepero1]

Patents should be completely eliminated. Doing away with the pharm industry will bring people back to using natural remedies.

[BWF89]

Many ills can't be cured with natural remedies.

[Sepero1]

My point exactly. When the greatest incentive is placed on finding unnatural solutions, you will predominantly have unnatural solutions arising in society.

When that incentive is removed, natural cures will be inevitably more abundant.

There is virtually no incentive to find natural remedies that cure ills.

Continuing in the same direction the USA is headed now will only bring more unnatural pharmaceuticals.

[BWF89]

Just because something is natural as opposed to artificial doesn't mean it's any better or safer. There are plenty of deadly chemicals that come directly out of nature.

[Sepero1]

I agree

[D4Shawn]

We don't know what solutions the market will provide; we only know that it will provide them.

DRM (digital rights management) technologies are an example.

All IP rights are localized. Right now, there's nothing (to my knowledge) that stops people from selling pirated versions of American movies in Bangkok. Individual communities/societies either uphold IP rights, or they don't.

IMO, it is each producer's job (not "societies") to secure protection of one's "property" (intellectual/material).

[sirscutter]

I agree.

[BWF89]

How it might work is:

In a market anarchist society if the court systems, that would most likely run on common law believed people had the right to IP than the courts would uphold that right. A voluntary IP system would than be setup. The different private defense agencies (PDAs) / insurance companies would have to agree on a common IP system like countries today have for the most part agreed on a common IP system. If you broke the IP laws your PDA might threaten to drop you from their service.