This is why we need single-payer health care

Your Virginia Tech Politics and Religion source
Forum rules
Be Civil. Go Hokies.
User avatar
ip_law-hokie
Posts: 19133
Joined: Wed Aug 21, 2013 9:20 pm
Alma Mater: Manchester
Location: New York, NY

Re: This is why we need single-payer health care

Post by ip_law-hokie »

Marine Hokie wrote:
ip_law-hokie wrote:
Marine Hokie wrote:
ip_law-hokie wrote:In this example, the government intervention is a patent (provided for by the constitution). not to say that there is not merit to your argument, but it does not apply in this particular example (reverse payment patent settlements), unless you want to dismantle the patent system (which would itself be form of government intervention)


*this is only in response to marine's point **
Correct, government intervention via patents is (part of) the problem (though not the only government intervention problem in this case).
I'm not sure that I agree that the government stopping intervention is itself intervention. But if that's what you want to call it, then sure, I'm for the government intervening in itself to stop intervening in markets.

Are you advocating that we abolish the patent system?
I've consistently advocated for states to not continue the practice of issuing special monopoly privileges.
OK - I'll take that as a yes. Do you think we need a constitutional amendment to effect this change?
With their Cap’n and Chief Intelligence Officer having deserted them, River, Ham and Joe valiantly continue their whataboutismistic last stand of the DJT apology tour.
User avatar
Major Kong
Posts: 15728
Joined: Wed Aug 21, 2013 9:35 pm
Alma Mater: Ferrum VT ASU
Party: Independent
Location: Somewhere between Marion and Seven Mile Ford

Re: This is why we need single-payer health care

Post by Major Kong »

The author of the article mentions insulin (which I take 4 shots a day).

There is no such thing as a "generic" insulin. Since it's classified as a biological there will never be a generic insulin.

At one time you could sachet into a pharmacy and get a vial of insulin for a $1, those days are long gone...and with the advent of analog insulin the prices have sky rocketed to where a month's supply can run an uninsured person over a $2000 a month (Apidra and Lantus for instance).

Walmart has really done the uninsured of this country a good service by contracting with Novo Nordisk to sell its Novolin R, N and Novolin 70/30 for $24.88 under their own ReliOn brand....these insulin's are not analog and take much more monitoring on behalf of the patient/doctor but they do work they're just not as effective.

The crazy thing is the patents on these analog insulin's expired years ago but not one company has started a biosimilar product. The reason? Our own FDA. The FDA didn't get on the ball until 2012 when they issued a draft guidance on the development of biosimilar insulin. Hurray it only took them 12 years and only then because of the ACA...there was absolutely nothing stopping them from producing guidelines before that...wink, wink. :(

As an aside here is a little known drug thingy...you do not need a Rx to buy non analog insulins. You can just walk in and buy it.
I only post using 100% recycled electrons.

Image
User avatar
Marine Hokie
Posts: 2124
Joined: Wed Aug 21, 2013 9:50 pm
Location: Durham, NC

Re: This is why we need single-payer health care

Post by Marine Hokie »

ip_law-hokie wrote:
Marine Hokie wrote:
ip_law-hokie wrote:
Marine Hokie wrote:
ip_law-hokie wrote:In this example, the government intervention is a patent (provided for by the constitution). not to say that there is not merit to your argument, but it does not apply in this particular example (reverse payment patent settlements), unless you want to dismantle the patent system (which would itself be form of government intervention)


*this is only in response to marine's point **
Correct, government intervention via patents is (part of) the problem (though not the only government intervention problem in this case).
I'm not sure that I agree that the government stopping intervention is itself intervention. But if that's what you want to call it, then sure, I'm for the government intervening in itself to stop intervening in markets.

Are you advocating that we abolish the patent system?
I've consistently advocated for states to not continue the practice of issuing special monopoly privileges.

OK - I'll take that as a yes. Do you think we need a constitutional amendment to effect this change?
Why do you ask? I'm not sure that changing their constitution to disallow patents would do much, since they ignore most of the restrictions in it. They mostly just pay attention to the parts "authorizing them" to do things, like grant IP monopolies, confiscate wealth, etc. But if you think that's what it should take, I don't have a problem with it.
A man is no less a slave because he is allowed to choose a new master once in a term of years.
User avatar
ip_law-hokie
Posts: 19133
Joined: Wed Aug 21, 2013 9:20 pm
Alma Mater: Manchester
Location: New York, NY

Re: This is why we need single-payer health care

Post by ip_law-hokie »

because it's a rather radical and left-wing position you have there. not one that is typical from original meaning types (I've put you in this group, fairly or not).

not to say it is without merit, just a bit radical. . . ..

[/quote]

Why do you ask? I'm not sure that changing their constitution to disallow patents would do much, since they ignore most of the restrictions in it. They mostly just pay attention to the parts "authorizing them" to do things, like grant IP monopolies, confiscate wealth, etc. But if you think that's what it should take, I don't have a problem with it.[/quote]
With their Cap’n and Chief Intelligence Officer having deserted them, River, Ham and Joe valiantly continue their whataboutismistic last stand of the DJT apology tour.
User avatar
Marine Hokie
Posts: 2124
Joined: Wed Aug 21, 2013 9:50 pm
Location: Durham, NC

Re: This is why we need single-payer health care

Post by Marine Hokie »

ip_law-hokie wrote:because it's a rather radical and left-wing position you have there. not one that is typical from original meaning types (I've put you in this group, fairly or not).

not to say it is without merit, just a bit radical. . . ..
When did I advocate for original meaning? Sure, I think if they're going to pretend to be restricted by their document, they should actually do it. The alternative is that they just interpret it to mean whatever they think it should mean to support their goals, and the document is rendered meaningless. There's a good argument to make that this ship has long since sailed. But I don't worship the constitution with the kind of reverence many (most?) people do, as something that theoretically binds the government and definitely binds the rest of us, and that as long as something either not prohibited by the constitution or else is specifically "authorized" by the constitution then it's ok for the state to do it.

I could be wrong, but I don't think anti-government sanctioned patent/copyright is left wing. Most democratic politicians favor government-sanctioned monopolies and special privileges for the chosen just as much as republican politicians.
A man is no less a slave because he is allowed to choose a new master once in a term of years.
User avatar
ip_law-hokie
Posts: 19133
Joined: Wed Aug 21, 2013 9:20 pm
Alma Mater: Manchester
Location: New York, NY

Re: This is why we need single-payer health care

Post by ip_law-hokie »

You didn't advocate for original meaning. I merely put you in this group based on an assumption (apparently unfairly).

It is very left-wing to disregard property rights (e.g., rights under a patent) in the favor of the common good. Even if you are arguing for just eliminating patents going forward (but not eliminating existing rights), then it is in stark contrast to the pro-IP policies that most right wingers seem to hold. Not a criticism, just an observation.

Marine Hokie wrote:
ip_law-hokie wrote:because it's a rather radical and left-wing position you have there. not one that is typical from original meaning types (I've put you in this group, fairly or not).

not to say it is without merit, just a bit radical. . . ..
When did I advocate for original meaning? Sure, I think if they're going to pretend to be restricted by their document, they should actually do it. The alternative is that they just interpret it to mean whatever they think it should mean to support their goals, and the document is rendered meaningless. There's a good argument to make that this ship has long since sailed. But I don't worship the constitution with the kind of reverence many (most?) people do, as something that theoretically binds the government and definitely binds the rest of us, and that as long as something either not prohibited by the constitution or else is specifically "authorized" by the constitution then it's ok for the state to do it.

I could be wrong, but I don't think anti-government sanctioned patent/copyright is left wing. Most democratic politicians favor government-sanctioned monopolies and special privileges for the chosen just as much as republican politicians.
With their Cap’n and Chief Intelligence Officer having deserted them, River, Ham and Joe valiantly continue their whataboutismistic last stand of the DJT apology tour.
User avatar
BigDave
Posts: 8012
Joined: Mon Aug 19, 2013 11:20 pm
Alma Mater: Virginia Tech
Party: Republican

Re: This is why we need single-payer health care

Post by BigDave »

ip_law-hokie wrote:OK - I'll take that as a yes. Do you think we need a constitutional amendment to effect this change?
Dumb question - if you wanted to abolish patents, why would you need a constitutional amendment to do it? The constitution merely empowers the Congress "To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries". It does not require Congress to do any of that stuff.

While obviously, I don't agree with all of Marine Hokie's libertarianism, the real problem with patents is the crony capitalism aspect, not the patents themselves. You get a patent on something stupid (like one-click shopping) and then bully companies into giving you a payoff because it's cheaper then litigation. You get a patent on a new technology and then lobby the government to either require people to buy it or to ban all competing technologies. Patents themselves aren't a bad thing and people should be able to, for a reasonable time, exclusively profit from their inventions.
Posted from my Commodore 64 using Tapatalk
User avatar
ip_law-hokie
Posts: 19133
Joined: Wed Aug 21, 2013 9:20 pm
Alma Mater: Manchester
Location: New York, NY

Re: This is why we need single-payer health care

Post by ip_law-hokie »

BigDave wrote:
ip_law-hokie wrote:OK - I'll take that as a yes. Do you think we need a constitutional amendment to effect this change?
Dumb question - if you wanted to abolish patents, why would you need a constitutional amendment to do it? The constitution merely empowers the Congress "To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries". It does not require Congress to do any of that stuff.

While obviously, I don't agree with all of Marine Hokie's libertarianism, the real problem with patents is the crony capitalism aspect, not the patents themselves. You get a patent on something stupid (like one-click shopping) and then bully companies into giving you a payoff because it's cheaper then litigation. You get a patent on a new technology and then lobby the government to either require people to buy it or to ban all competing technologies. Patents themselves aren't a bad thing and people should be able to, for a reasonable time, exclusively profit from their inventions.
It's not a dumb question. I would argue that the patent clause you quoted seems to grant an individual right to inventors for their discoveries, but your position has merit too. Maybe more than mine.

The problem is that you shouldn't be able to get a patent on something stupid in the first place. The evils all flow from that.
With their Cap’n and Chief Intelligence Officer having deserted them, River, Ham and Joe valiantly continue their whataboutismistic last stand of the DJT apology tour.
User avatar
Marine Hokie
Posts: 2124
Joined: Wed Aug 21, 2013 9:50 pm
Location: Durham, NC

Re: This is why we need single-payer health care

Post by Marine Hokie »

ip_law-hokie wrote: It is very left-wing to disregard property rights (e.g., rights under a patent) in the favor of the common good.
You're misrepresenting my position. I said nothing about the common good or about disregarding property rights. Government patents restrict property rights of the non-patent holder. A perceived net loss or gain to the common good is irrelevant to my position.
ip_law-hokie wrote:Even if you are arguing for just eliminating patents going forward (but not eliminating existing rights), then it is in stark contrast to the pro-IP policies that most right wingers seem to hold. Not a criticism, just an observation.
I'm honestly not sure how to reply to the charge that I don't share a view with right wingers.
A man is no less a slave because he is allowed to choose a new master once in a term of years.
User avatar
ip_law-hokie
Posts: 19133
Joined: Wed Aug 21, 2013 9:20 pm
Alma Mater: Manchester
Location: New York, NY

Re: This is why we need single-payer health care

Post by ip_law-hokie »

Marine Hokie wrote:
ip_law-hokie wrote: It is very left-wing to disregard property rights (e.g., rights under a patent) in the favor of the common good.
You're misrepresenting my position. I said nothing about the common good or about disregarding property rights. Government patents restrict property rights of the non-patent holder. A perceived net loss or gain to the common good is irrelevant to my position.
ip_law-hokie wrote:Even if you are arguing for just eliminating patents going forward (but not eliminating existing rights), then it is in stark contrast to the pro-IP policies that most right wingers seem to hold. Not a criticism, just an observation.
I'm honestly not sure how to reply to the charge that I don't share a view with right wingers.
I'm not trying to argue with you, and whether the common good is the motivation or not is irrelevant, its the end result. Marxist! (TIC)
With their Cap’n and Chief Intelligence Officer having deserted them, River, Ham and Joe valiantly continue their whataboutismistic last stand of the DJT apology tour.
User avatar
BigDave
Posts: 8012
Joined: Mon Aug 19, 2013 11:20 pm
Alma Mater: Virginia Tech
Party: Republican

Re: This is why we need single-payer health care

Post by BigDave »

Marine Hokie wrote:
ip_law-hokie wrote:Even if you are arguing for just eliminating patents going forward (but not eliminating existing rights), then it is in stark contrast to the pro-IP policies that most right wingers seem to hold. Not a criticism, just an observation.
I'm honestly not sure how to reply to the charge that I don't share a view with right wingers.
Which right-wingers are especially "pro-IP"? The Mickey Mouse Defense Act in 1998 passed both houses by unanimous consent and was signed into law by the first "first black President". Being beholden to "big Mickey" seems to be a bipartisan thing.
Posted from my Commodore 64 using Tapatalk
User avatar
Marine Hokie
Posts: 2124
Joined: Wed Aug 21, 2013 9:50 pm
Location: Durham, NC

Re: This is why we need single-payer health care

Post by Marine Hokie »

ip_law-hokie wrote:
Marine Hokie wrote:
ip_law-hokie wrote: It is very left-wing to disregard property rights (e.g., rights under a patent) in the favor of the common good.
You're misrepresenting my position. I said nothing about the common good or about disregarding property rights. Government patents restrict property rights of the non-patent holder. A perceived net loss or gain to the common good is irrelevant to my position.
ip_law-hokie wrote:Even if you are arguing for just eliminating patents going forward (but not eliminating existing rights), then it is in stark contrast to the pro-IP policies that most right wingers seem to hold. Not a criticism, just an observation.
I'm honestly not sure how to reply to the charge that I don't share a view with right wingers.
I'm not trying to argue with you, and whether the common good is the motivation or not is irrelevant, its the end result. Marxist! (TIC)
You're still misrepresenting my position. I said nothing about the end result being what's significant.
A man is no less a slave because he is allowed to choose a new master once in a term of years.
User avatar
Marine Hokie
Posts: 2124
Joined: Wed Aug 21, 2013 9:50 pm
Location: Durham, NC

Re: This is why we need single-payer health care

Post by Marine Hokie »

BigDave wrote:
Marine Hokie wrote:
ip_law-hokie wrote:Even if you are arguing for just eliminating patents going forward (but not eliminating existing rights), then it is in stark contrast to the pro-IP policies that most right wingers seem to hold. Not a criticism, just an observation.
I'm honestly not sure how to reply to the charge that I don't share a view with right wingers.
Which right-wingers are especially "pro-IP"? The Mickey Mouse Defense Act in 1998 passed both houses by unanimous consent and was signed into law by the first "first black President". Being beholden to "big Mickey" seems to be a bipartisan thing.
I'm almost positive I didn't make the claim that republican politicians favor government-sanctioned monopolies more (or less) than democrats.
A man is no less a slave because he is allowed to choose a new master once in a term of years.
User avatar
ip_law-hokie
Posts: 19133
Joined: Wed Aug 21, 2013 9:20 pm
Alma Mater: Manchester
Location: New York, NY

Re: This is why we need single-payer health care

Post by ip_law-hokie »

BigDave wrote:
Marine Hokie wrote:
ip_law-hokie wrote:Even if you are arguing for just eliminating patents going forward (but not eliminating existing rights), then it is in stark contrast to the pro-IP policies that most right wingers seem to hold. Not a criticism, just an observation.
I'm honestly not sure how to reply to the charge that I don't share a view with right wingers.
Which right-wingers are especially "pro-IP"? The Mickey Mouse Defense Act in 1998 passed both houses by unanimous consent and was signed into law by the first "first black President". Being beholden to "big Mickey" seems to be a bipartisan thing.
I think the better question is who is not pro-IP? I count at least two: Che Guvara and Marine.

(just giving you a hard time Marine. FWIW, we probably agree that pro-IP is not always pro-business, or pro-competitive.)
With their Cap’n and Chief Intelligence Officer having deserted them, River, Ham and Joe valiantly continue their whataboutismistic last stand of the DJT apology tour.
User avatar
ip_law-hokie
Posts: 19133
Joined: Wed Aug 21, 2013 9:20 pm
Alma Mater: Manchester
Location: New York, NY

Re: This is why we need single-payer health care

Post by ip_law-hokie »

Marine Hokie wrote:
BigDave wrote:
Marine Hokie wrote:
ip_law-hokie wrote:Even if you are arguing for just eliminating patents going forward (but not eliminating existing rights), then it is in stark contrast to the pro-IP policies that most right wingers seem to hold. Not a criticism, just an observation.
I'm honestly not sure how to reply to the charge that I don't share a view with right wingers.
Which right-wingers are especially "pro-IP"? The Mickey Mouse Defense Act in 1998 passed both houses by unanimous consent and was signed into law by the first "first black President". Being beholden to "big Mickey" seems to be a bipartisan thing.
I'm almost positive I didn't make the claim that republican politicians favor government-sanctioned monopolies more (or less) than democrats.
The mainstream view is that patents and enforcing patent rights is a fundamental tenant to a stable economy. You have to search the fringes to find people who do not believe in enforcing at least some patent rights.

Your position that we should no longer grant patents would draw attention from the WTO. If your position is also that the U.S. government should not respect the IP rights of others (foreign nationals), then it would probably expel us. I respectfully submit that it is a bit naive and is certainly radical.
With their Cap’n and Chief Intelligence Officer having deserted them, River, Ham and Joe valiantly continue their whataboutismistic last stand of the DJT apology tour.
User avatar
Marine Hokie
Posts: 2124
Joined: Wed Aug 21, 2013 9:50 pm
Location: Durham, NC

Re: This is why we need single-payer health care

Post by Marine Hokie »

ip_law-hokie wrote:
Marine Hokie wrote:
BigDave wrote:
Marine Hokie wrote:
ip_law-hokie wrote:Even if you are arguing for just eliminating patents going forward (but not eliminating existing rights), then it is in stark contrast to the pro-IP policies that most right wingers seem to hold. Not a criticism, just an observation.
I'm honestly not sure how to reply to the charge that I don't share a view with right wingers.
Which right-wingers are especially "pro-IP"? The Mickey Mouse Defense Act in 1998 passed both houses by unanimous consent and was signed into law by the first "first black President". Being beholden to "big Mickey" seems to be a bipartisan thing.
I'm almost positive I didn't make the claim that republican politicians favor government-sanctioned monopolies more (or less) than democrats.
The mainstream view is that patents and enforcing patent rights is a fundamental tenant to a stable economy. You have to search the fringes to find people who do not believe in enforcing at least some patent rights.

Your position that we should no longer grant patents would draw attention from the WTO. If your position is also that the U.S. government should not respect the IP rights of others (foreign nationals), then it would probably expel us. I respectfully submit that it is a bit naive and is certainly radical.
I'm not going to hold a bad position just because it's a popular one. War with Iraq in 2003 was popular, war with England in 1775 wasn't.
I stand by my assertion that patents restrict property rights, they do not protect them. I'm not going to be swayed on my position against state intervention in our personal lives by an argument that it could negatively affect the US government's relationship with other governments. President Obama's desire to be friendly with the chancellor of Germany doesn't supersede our personal liberties.
A man is no less a slave because he is allowed to choose a new master once in a term of years.
User avatar
ip_law-hokie
Posts: 19133
Joined: Wed Aug 21, 2013 9:20 pm
Alma Mater: Manchester
Location: New York, NY

Re: This is why we need single-payer health care

Post by ip_law-hokie »

Respect! Have you seen this discussed anywhere? I obviously have a personal interest in the debate, but I'd be interested as an academic point. It's a debate you do not see everyday.
With their Cap’n and Chief Intelligence Officer having deserted them, River, Ham and Joe valiantly continue their whataboutismistic last stand of the DJT apology tour.
User avatar
Marine Hokie
Posts: 2124
Joined: Wed Aug 21, 2013 9:50 pm
Location: Durham, NC

Re: This is why we need single-payer health care

Post by Marine Hokie »

I can't think of it being discussed among republicans and democrats often, as I'm reasonably confident both groups are pretty much in favor of patents.

ip_law-hokie wrote:Respect! Have you seen this discussed anywhere? I obviously have a personal interest in the debate, but I'd be interested as an academic point. It's a debate you do not see everyday.
A man is no less a slave because he is allowed to choose a new master once in a term of years.
User avatar
ip_law-hokie
Posts: 19133
Joined: Wed Aug 21, 2013 9:20 pm
Alma Mater: Manchester
Location: New York, NY

Re: This is why we need single-payer health care

Post by ip_law-hokie »

Marine Hokie wrote:I can't think of it being discussed among republicans and democrats often, as I'm reasonably confident both groups are pretty much in favor of patents.

ip_law-hokie wrote:Respect! Have you seen this discussed anywhere? I obviously have a personal interest in the debate, but I'd be interested as an academic point. It's a debate you do not see everyday.
I would focus on the fringes and abuses before trying to overthrow the current system in its entirety. It does have 235+ years of history in the U.S., and UK common law roots.

Advocate for loser-pays damages, tighter scrutiny in getting patents allowed, and greater restrictions on patent eligible subject matter. These efforts are already occurring, and I think they would be for the net good. Just my unsolicited advice.
With their Cap’n and Chief Intelligence Officer having deserted them, River, Ham and Joe valiantly continue their whataboutismistic last stand of the DJT apology tour.
User avatar
Marine Hokie
Posts: 2124
Joined: Wed Aug 21, 2013 9:50 pm
Location: Durham, NC

Re: This is why we need single-payer health care

Post by Marine Hokie »

ip_law-hokie wrote:
Marine Hokie wrote:I can't think of it being discussed among republicans and democrats often, as I'm reasonably confident both groups are pretty much in favor of patents.

ip_law-hokie wrote:Respect! Have you seen this discussed anywhere? I obviously have a personal interest in the debate, but I'd be interested as an academic point. It's a debate you do not see everyday.
I would focus on the fringes and abuses before trying to overthrow the current system in its entirety. It does have 235+ years of history in the U.S., and UK common law roots.

Advocate for loser-pays damages, tighter scrutiny in getting patents allowed, and greater restrictions on patent eligible subject matter. These efforts are already occurring, and I think they would be for the net good. Just my unsolicited advice.
So if slave owners agreed to stop beating their slaves, that would be ok? Surely they shouldn't have overthrown the current system that had such a long legal history.
A man is no less a slave because he is allowed to choose a new master once in a term of years.
User avatar
ip_law-hokie
Posts: 19133
Joined: Wed Aug 21, 2013 9:20 pm
Alma Mater: Manchester
Location: New York, NY

Re: This is why we need single-payer health care

Post by ip_law-hokie »

That's fine and all, but you'd have a greater effect on society to enter the debate where it is currently being waged. And I think it is a debate worth having.
Marine Hokie wrote:
ip_law-hokie wrote:
Marine Hokie wrote:I can't think of it being discussed among republicans and democrats often, as I'm reasonably confident both groups are pretty much in favor of patents.

ip_law-hokie wrote:Respect! Have you seen this discussed anywhere? I obviously have a personal interest in the debate, but I'd be interested as an academic point. It's a debate you do not see everyday.
I would focus on the fringes and abuses before trying to overthrow the current system in its entirety. It does have 235+ years of history in the U.S., and UK common law roots.

Advocate for loser-pays damages, tighter scrutiny in getting patents allowed, and greater restrictions on patent eligible subject matter. These efforts are already occurring, and I think they would be for the net good. Just my unsolicited advice.
So if slave owners agreed to stop beating their slaves, that would be ok? Surely they shouldn't have overthrown the current system that had such a long legal history.
With their Cap’n and Chief Intelligence Officer having deserted them, River, Ham and Joe valiantly continue their whataboutismistic last stand of the DJT apology tour.
User avatar
Marine Hokie
Posts: 2124
Joined: Wed Aug 21, 2013 9:50 pm
Location: Durham, NC

Re: This is why we need single-payer health care

Post by Marine Hokie »

That's the exclusive attitude that helps keep the two established parties running the show.
ip_law-hokie wrote:That's fine and all, but you'd have a greater effect on society to enter the debate where it is currently being waged. And I think it is a debate worth having.
Marine Hokie wrote:
ip_law-hokie wrote:
Marine Hokie wrote:I can't think of it being discussed among republicans and democrats often, as I'm reasonably confident both groups are pretty much in favor of patents.

ip_law-hokie wrote:Respect! Have you seen this discussed anywhere? I obviously have a personal interest in the debate, but I'd be interested as an academic point. It's a debate you do not see everyday.
I would focus on the fringes and abuses before trying to overthrow the current system in its entirety. It does have 235+ years of history in the U.S., and UK common law roots.

Advocate for loser-pays damages, tighter scrutiny in getting patents allowed, and greater restrictions on patent eligible subject matter. These efforts are already occurring, and I think they would be for the net good. Just my unsolicited advice.
So if slave owners agreed to stop beating their slaves, that would be ok? Surely they shouldn't have overthrown the current system that had such a long legal history.
A man is no less a slave because he is allowed to choose a new master once in a term of years.
HokieJoe
Posts: 13125
Joined: Thu Aug 22, 2013 2:12 pm
Alma Mater: Virginia Tech
Party: Eclectic

Re: This is why we need single-payer health care

Post by HokieJoe »

I think our patent system and the idea of intellectual property is essential to advancement. The problem is, the system hasn't kept up with the pace of technological advancement. It's full of holes, and vulnerable to cronyism.

It needs to be overhauled.



ip_law-hokie wrote:
BigDave wrote:
Marine Hokie wrote:
ip_law-hokie wrote:Even if you are arguing for just eliminating patents going forward (but not eliminating existing rights), then it is in stark contrast to the pro-IP policies that most right wingers seem to hold. Not a criticism, just an observation.
I'm honestly not sure how to reply to the charge that I don't share a view with right wingers.
Which right-wingers are especially "pro-IP"? The Mickey Mouse Defense Act in 1998 passed both houses by unanimous consent and was signed into law by the first "first black President". Being beholden to "big Mickey" seems to be a bipartisan thing.
I think the better question is who is not pro-IP? I count at least two: Che Guvara and Marine.

(just giving you a hard time Marine. FWIW, we probably agree that pro-IP is not always pro-business, or pro-competitive.)
"I predict future happiness for Americans, if they can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of taking care of them." - Thomas Jefferson
Post Reply