[ExI] intellectual property again

JOSHUA JOB nanite1018 at gmail.com
Tue Mar 9 21:40:39 UTC 2010


On Mar 9, 2010, at 4:20 PM, Stefano Vaj wrote:

> I appreciate that this position exists, but if you could show that (in
> some circumstances, some forms of) IP is not even efficient from a
> collectivist viewpoint, this would simply strengthen your position and
> widen your audience without requiring any compromise on "egoist
> morality", wouldn't it?

Actually, I think that would weaken my position. Now if I proved it WAS efficient even from a collectivist viewpoint, then THAT might strengthen my position.

On that note, I suppose I could give it a try.

Let's take the example of a patent on a newly created gene that can be used to produce a certain medicine (doesn't really matter what), that could previously only be produced at high expense in limited quantities, but now can be produced at low cost in giant vats of bacteria, allowing widespread access to the new medication. I do want to stress that this is a designed gene, something novel not originally found in nature (as such genes, themselves, are ambiguous in my mind as to whether they can actually be considered patentable, since they were not "created" by anyone).

Such a project likely was not cheap, and cost a significant amount of time and resources for that company to produce. Obviously it is a big bonus to society that such a gene be created. However, if someone could then simply take a sample of the bacterium, or an text document containing the DNA sequence of the gene, and immediately begin production of an identical product without having to undergo almost any of the initial startup costs (the big one being R&D), then while this might increase availability of that one medication (and be a boon for society as a result), it seems highly dubious at best to suggest that people would keep producing these new insights at as high a rate of speed if making a profit on them is almost impossible (as a competitor will simply seize it and get all the benefits without any of the risk). 

In such an environment, R&D will likely be reduced significantly, and the rate of advance will have significantly decreased. That would certainly produce more harm over all than good. And so the company should be able to patent its new gene, at least for a sizeable amount of time (though perhaps not indefinitely, as eventually their continued control would likely not benefit them much at all, as competitors will have been working on alternatives to get the same end result anyway).


Joshua Job
nanite1018 at gmail.com






More information about the extropy-chat mailing list