BT ordered to block pirate links

They really don't have a bloody clue.

Simple Rule: Stuff people acquire illegally would not be acquired legally if the means to acquire it illegally were removed.

In other words, I might download or stream a film for the sake of it because it is free and easy. If it wasn't free and/or easy, I wouldn't pay for it and thus simply wouldn't watch it.

I watch all my films via Lovefilm/Sky and use Spotify so I personally don't 'break the law' so to speak. As far as I'm concerned, the era of buying physical media is over. Why bother buying hundreds of Blu-Rays when they will be obsolete when the next thing, say Green-Ray or Ray-Ray, comes out in 10 years time. Think video tapes, we chuck them out by the bucket load.
 
With the dyson invention he is depending on IP to protect his idea, so it will be a long time before they are affordable items. Dyson will have a government enabled monopoly on them and they will sell them at a high price. If someone copies his idea and is producing it for a cheaper cost and sells it in the same region that dyson is then they would have to hope they are either selling it a cheaper price or a better quality or both. But most likely it will be a less quality with a cheaper price. The consumer does not realy lose out. Dyson can still sell their version and make a profit. Take for example the washing machine, several makes and models are available and it is a successful item.
 
How coulddyson still sell his device, he's gone bust. How is a one man band going to have a superior product to a massive production plant, with state or the atprt tools to have tight tolerances and can still sell if for less and has the money for advertising.
So has the drug companies, they have gone bust as well.
 
nonhelmet said:
The point, particularly with drugs, is that unless you can be sure of recouping your costs, you aren't going to sink those costs. Why would a company sink a billion dollars researching a working, safe, produceable drug if, having found the formula, anyone can produce it? You wouldn't.

The same goes for high tech stuff, like an iPhone. R&D costs, and if everyone can copy your tech from the get go, why are you going to develop the tech yourself?
Click to expand...

The iphone is a great example of why IP is pointless. The amount of effort that would be required to copy the iphone is a lot. There does exist some chinese copies of the iphone and they are weak imitations. If someone invented a version of the iphone that ran the same OS and connected to the app store and functioned just like an iphone but was on better hardware and sold it for a cheaper price, then I see no problem with that. There is no evidence that, if inventions were not protected by government enabled monopolies that no one would invest in any inventions.
 
groen said:
. There is no evidence that, if inventions were not protected by government enabled monopolies that no one would invest in any inventions.
Click to expand...

haha there is plenty. Go read up and phamaceticles for a start. Then once you finished there move on to the next industry and then the next and then the next and so on.
 
In my opinion, the pirate party UK has is spot on when it comes to patents:

We believe that patents exist to reward the inventors of truly outstanding ideas, not to allow big businesses to stifle competition with an ever-growing tide of trivial, incomprehensible, overreaching patents.

We will stop the abuse of patent law by raising the bar on how innovative an idea has to be before it can be patented, and by prohibiting patents on software, business methods, concepts and works of nature.

We will require a working model to be provided to the patent office before a patent is granted and we will strictly enforce the current rule that patents are invalid if they are "obvious to someone skilled in the art".

We will allow and encourage more competition in the manufacturing of patented devices by introducing a system of compulsory patent licensing, and we will provide exemptions to patent law for non-commercial use, personal study and academic research.

We will abolish drug patents, which will reduce drug costs drastically, since all drugs will become generic. This will save the NHS vast sums of money; part of that saving will then be used to subsidise drug research.

The pharmaceutical industry currently spends around 15% of its patent drug income on research; we will replace that with subsidies to the value of 20%, increasing research budgets, while still saving the NHS money. This policy of making all drugs generic will create a massive opportunity for industry to make profits, employ more people and save lives by encouraging the manufacture of newly generic drugs in this country for sale to the third world.
Click to expand...
 
People invest in the marketability of the invention, not in the invention itself. That is why all R&D research is focused on projects that will make money. That is why the government has little to no R&D. Like i said earlier what is an invention that no one uses. There is also the problem of big corporations buying up inventions and then sitting on them to prevent competition. Say for example if a big oil company bought up a new type of energy source and hid the idea in a big safe. Do you think that is a good use of patent laws. What about when the farmers lose their land due to patented seeds that fall on to their land. Patent law is not all about saving the innocent inventor or ensuring that large corporations invest in R&D.
 
Really, reduce cost of drugs? That's because there won't be any new drugs.

How is the pirate party going to fund new drugs? Where is the party going to find these hundreds of billions to publicly fund it? And somehow reduce cost of NHS. It doesn't commute.
And once it's generic, then the companies will ship it off to china to be mass produced. So we've spent hundreds of billions developing it and now have no jobs and no income and again the country goes broke.
 
Last edited:
AcidHell2 said:
Really, reduce cost of drugs? That's because there won't be any new costs.

How is the pirate party going to fund new drugs?
Click to expand...

The cost of drugs will be reduced because other companies will be able to copy them without infringing on patents, so there will be more competition, and hence the cost will fall dramatically. Most drugs cost very little to make, look at the cost of drugs that are out of patent.

This reduced drug cost will save the NHS a fortune, enough for the government to subsidise new drug research so there is no loss in research money
 
If we removed IP laws we would probably find that price of pharma drugs would come down. Drug R&D companies would then sell their drug idea to the drug manufactures that would then go on to produce them at the best qualtiy and price that they would to make the most money. It would then be up to other drug production companies to try and compete. Mean while the R&D is still making money and now he has many drug production companies bidding for his drugs. The consumer gets cheaper drugs as a result.
 
How is the cost going to fall? The cost is in development. That is not going to fall. High drug price is to pay that huge investment off.

And again once generic, it's shipped of to china or another country and we further lose rev revenue and cost.

So please explain how this is going to be funded and work. Then how it will reduce costs.

Again it's around $1.3billion per drug. So you get cheaper drugs. But for every one new drug the NHS pays 1.3billion. Yeah the drugs are really cheaper.

NHS spends £12 billion a year and about 25 drugs are approved each year.

So that's £20 billion a year for research, so you've already massively increased NHS budget and that doesn't include manufacturing cost, or the fact we aren't the world.
 
Last edited:
That $1.3 billion even today would only be viable if there was a market that would allow for that cost in R&D. This means that there is over $1.3billion at least in the market for that drug. Drug manufacturing is already in china and in countries that reduces it cost of production. The cost of development would not directly fall from removing IP laws but due to pressures due to competition and the resulting innovation, cost cutting innovations are more likely to come about. But I was referring to a cost reduction for the consumer or the price for the consumer would come down not production costs. The produces could still sell their drugs to drug manufactures under any sort of contract that they want and reap a profit on R&D. If they could not reach a profit through the sale on the drug on R&D costs then the drug would not get made. But that is the same today.

I have tried generic versions of drugs and they were exactly the same but cheaper. I would bet that the NHS over pays for their drugs and gets ripped off by the pharma companies who have a close relationship with the NHS.
 
Last edited:
Cost cutting isn't more likely as it is to do wit testy Gand making new compounds. It's the biggest cost to such industries and is already pretty cost efficient as they can be.
The whole idea is ridiculous when you look at it.

So now your saying get rid of IP but increase contract law to replace IP, whats the point in that.
 
In 2008, the global pharmaceutical revenue world wide was $497 Billion
The global record high for R&D by these companies is $65 Billion

So 13% of revenue is R&D.
Doesn't seem development is the main cost.

Anyway, I'm tired and can't type very quickly with my cast, I'll give a better argument tomorrow
 
Ones revenue, ones cost why are you comparing the two.

So uk government funds research and makes it generic.
Companies do research in uk and sends it all abroad.
So we've spent money on research
No increase in jobs
Maybe cheaper drugs.
Budgets is totally blown and uk plc goes down the drain.
 
AcidHell2 said:
Ones revenue, ones cost why are you comparing the two.

So uk government funds research and makes it generic.
Companies do research in uk and sends it all abroad.
So we've spent money on research
No increase in jobs
Maybe cheaper drugs.
Budgets is totally blown and uk plc goes down the drain.
Click to expand...

There's no point arguing with him. He's either a troll or just plain ignorant to how industry works!
 
Medicines are one of UK's greatest exports, remove patenting and as mentioned earlier generic drug manufacture (and research) will be done in china and other countries for much less cost. UK would then lose a massive chunk in exports and the deficit will be even greater, most likely crippling the UK economy and destroying the value of the pound, not to mention the huge rise in unemployment (then subsequent unemployment benefit claims) due to all the companies moving overseas.

Thats ok because we are going to subsidise this with the money we save from the NHS with cheaper drugs, right? :rolleyes:
 
I'm guessing we can expect other providers to follow suit although I wonder if Virgin will put up more of a fight in court as surely they would get more customers migrating now?

Also what on earth is this talk of pharmaceutics in the thread?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom