INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY RIGHTS: THE FUTURE OF KNOWLEDGE

Group 2: Dhara Gada, Brianna Monroe, Collin Zeffer, David Budzinski, Jared Logan, Arman Ameri, Suguna Srilasya Banigandlapati  

 

In Defense of IPR (CSO)

https://www.csoonline.com/article/2138380/loss-prevention/loss-prevention-intellectual-property-protection-the-basics.html (Links to an external site.)

 

  • Intellectual Property is the creation of the mind, whether it be inventions, literary and artistic works, symbols, names, images, or designs.
  • Four types of intellectual property include patents (rights to manufacture and market tangible things), trademarks (names, phrases, sounds, or symbols used in association with a product or service), copyright (written or artistic expressions in a tangible medium), and trade secrets (formula, pattern, device, or compilation of data that grants advantage over a competitor).
  • Some ways to protect your intellectual property include knowing what intellectual property you have and where its located, prioritizing it, labeling it, securing it physically and digitally, educating employees about intellectual property, knowing the tools to protect it, involving the entire organization in IP protection, applying a counter-intelligence mindset, and understanding the risk at a global level.

 

GIPC

 

https://www.theglobalipcenter.com/why-are-intellectual-property-rights-important/ (Links to an external site.)

 

  • An Article from the United States Chamber of Commerce Global Innovation Policy Center explains why intellectual property rights are quite important. IP, short for intellectual property, contributes greatly to our national and state economies. 
  • These IPs allow industries and businesses to rely on the enforcement of patents, trademarks, and copyrights. For the customers, IPs are used to ensure that the products are safe and secure. This website provides a few reasons why IPs are extremely beneficial:
  • IP creates and supports high-paying jobs.
    • Jobs in industries where IP is growing are expected to increase drastically over the next decade.
  • IP drives economic growth and competitiveness.
  • Strong and enforced IP rights protect consumers and families.
    • Strong IPs help customers make smart choices about the legitimacy of their product purchases.
  • IP helps generate breakthrough solutions to global challenges.
    • Innovative agricultural companies are creating new products to help farmers improve and produce higher quantities of products.
    • Discoveries in alternative energy focused around IPs will help to improve the security of energy, along with the ability to address climate change.
  • IP rights encourage innovation and reward entrepreneurs.
    • These rights facilitate the flow of information by sharing the secure information to the patented invention. The process leads to new innovations and improvements on already existing creations.
  • With these points being stated, it is clear that having intellectual property being enforced will result in many positive results. These rights are acknowledged by all parts of the industry, between small, medium, and large companies, and along with labor groups, consumer groups, and other trade associations. 

 

Software and Community in the Early 21st Century:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NorfgQlEJv8 

  • We are operating to produce superior software at infinitely lower prices.
  • Humans cannot make meaningful redistribution fast enough to retain momentum politically without applying levels of coercion or violence which will destroy what we are attempting (human dignity and equality).
  • In the 21st century economy production does not occur in factories or by people but in communities. Ebay is a community in which people can buy or sell items. 
  • Humans’ sophistication in global coordination of massive social movements will become very good. 

 

The Truth About the Drug Companies Lecture – Dr. Marcia Angell

https://youtu.be/uDbQNBla6aU

Pharmaceutical and  FDA:

  • Many companies say that high prices are necessary to cover their high R and D costs which are false statements, as their high prices are really necessary to cover their enormous marketing and administrative expenditures and to maintain their obscene profits. Every large drug company pays off huge fines to settle the charges of their illegal activities.
  • Before a drug can be sold in this country, it should be/has to be approved by the FDA. And the approval depends on the company demonstrating in clinical trials that their new drug is reasonably safe and effective but also has a low standard of comparisons. And was categorized into 2 types namely-Nm-II and Me-too drugs
  • When a new drug comes to the market, the government grants it exclusive marketing rights for a certain period of time. When monopoly expires, other companies may sell the same drug and these are called Generic Drugs which are cheaper in cost.
  • Huge money is contributed for doctors and their resources, as doctors write the prescriptions. Hence, drug companies pay doctors for the extensive education they provide. So, a drug company will influence doctors in terms of clinical practice, research, and education which impact patients.

Needed Reforms:

  • Compare new drugs with old ones, Not placebo before FDA approval
  • Permit Medicare to regulate prices and create a formulary
  • Regulate the prices of drugs stemming from public research.

 

The Fashion Industry

http://www.ted.com/talks/johanna_blakley_lessons_from_fashion_s_free_culture?language=en (Links to an external site.)

  • In the fashion industry, there is very little intellectual property protection and the one that is there turns out that those protections that are offered are ineffectual. They have trademark protection but no copyright protection and no patent protection. 
  • Anybody could copy any garment on any person and sell it as their own design 
  • The only thing they can’t copy is the actual trademark label within the piece of apparel they are copying. 
  • There are many other industries that do not have copyright protection like food industry, automobiles, furniture, magic tricks, hairdos, open source software, tattoo artists, jokes, fireworks display, the rules of games, the smell of perfume. 
  • The gross sales for low I.P. industries, industries with very little copyright protection are higher than the one which have copyright protection. 
  • The two main oppositions within the logic of copyright law can be summarized as follows.  
  • First:  
    • Is something an artistic object? If so, then it deserves protection.
    • Is it a utilitarian object? If not, then there is no legal protection for it. 
  • The other one is:
    • Is it an idea? Is it something that needs to freely circulate in a free society? Then No protection.  
    • Or is it a physically fixed expression of an idea: something that somebody made and they deserve to own it for a while and make money from it? 

 

And…. Chinese Fast Food

https://www.ted.com/talks/jennifer_8_lee_the_hunt_for_general_tso?language=en

 

  • In the United States, there are roughly 40,000 Chinese fast-food restaurants. This is more than the number of McDonalds, Wendy’s, Burger King and Kentucky Fried Chickens combined. 
  • Ironically, Lee found that most Chinese people do not recognize any of the American Chinese food dishes. Even fortune cookies, for example, originate from Japan. 
  • Across the globe, many countries put their twist on local Chinese food- from places like Europe to South America.
  • The interesting phenomenon surrounding Chinese restaurants is that they are not necessarily chain restaurants like McDonalds or Burger King. For the most part, many Chinese restaurants are stand-alone establishments which opens the floor to discussion on intellectual property rights for certain dishes. 

 

Summary

 

    Intellectual property is the foundation of all businesses, no matter the industry. It is an intangible asset, most of the time not even a physical asset, that many strive to obtain. Competitors will seek to obtain any piece of information they can in order to gain a competitive advantage over the market, thus increasing their profits and growth. Intellectual property comes in four different forms – patents, trademarks, copyrights, and trade secrets. Because intellectual property is so sought after, it is extremely important to have the means to ensure that no information is leaked. For large companies, any breach of intellectual property can cause damages of millions of dollars. Once that classified information is known by others, there is no obtaining it back. Beyond being the main source of success for companies, intellectual property is responsible for other important areas. These areas include creating and supporting high paying jobs, driving economic growth and competitiveness, generating breakthrough solutions to global problems, and encouraging innovation and rewarding entrepreneurs.

    Eben Moglen is Chairman of the Software Freedom Law Center and professor of law and legal history at Columbia University. In his keynote address presented at Plone Conference on October 25, 2006, in Seattle, WA, Moglen weaves together the industrial revolution, knowledge of economy, the free software movement, the One Laptop Per Child project, and the long struggle for human dignity and equality. This lecture provides an uplifting perspective on the future of open source development. Dr. Marcia Angell explains that drugs are the fastest-growing part of the health care bill—which itself is rising at an alarming rate. The increase in drug spending is attributed to using more expensive newer drugs instead of older, cheaper ones. Prices of the most heavily prescribed drugs are increasing several times a year. As a consequence, people are unable to pay co-insurances and are not able to complete their full dosages. Pharmaceutical companies falsely claim that they make sure prices are high initially, to cover their huge research and development. Same brand drugs would cost on average twice as much only in the United States. People usually think that FDA approval means the drug offers something better than the existing ones. But this is not always true.

    Opposite of the pharmaceutical industry, the fast fashion industry has little to no intellectual property. Designs are created and produced so quickly that there is no time to protect this property. By the time it is protected, the design will be out of style and it will be of no use. The only item that can truly be protected is any trademark, such as a company name and logo. Other industries that are similar to the fast fashion industry are the food industry, automobiles, furniture, magic tricks, hairdos, open source software, tattoos, Jokes, fireworks displays, the rules of games, and the smell of perfume. 

    Lastly, in her TedTalk, Reporter Jennifer 8. Lee discusses the origins of Americanized Chinese food and how certain popular dishes in the United States have come to be what they are today. Typically, most items that you see in an American Chinese restaurant do not originate from China itself. There have been instances of individuals claiming to have been the creators of certain plates looking to profit off the success of Chinese food around the globe, however no cases have been followed up on.

 

Questions

  1. The theory of intellectual property rights protection rests on the idea that human beings will be innovative and creative only when a material system of incentives and rewards is in place. What is your assessment of this characterization? Reflect on it in the context of the fashion industry video.
  2. In her talk, Lee compares computer software like Microsoft and Linux to McDonald’s and Chinese fast food restaurants. How does this comparison work and in what ways does she bring in the question of intellectual property rights into these distinctions? 
  3. Marcia Angel lays out a trenchant critique of the pharmaceutical industry and it’s use/misuse of intellectual property rights. What are her main conclusions and how does she support such conclusions?

36 thoughts on “INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY RIGHTS: THE FUTURE OF KNOWLEDGE

  1. 1. The theory of intellectual property rights protection rests on the idea that human beings will be innovative and creative only when a material system of incentives and rewards is in place. What is your assessment of this characterization? Reflect on it in the context of the fashion industry video.

    In the fashion industry there is little Ip protection, instead there is trademark protection which in turn protects the logo of the maker. “Apparel design is to utilitarian to qualify for copyright protection” was a good way to describe the impossibility of Ip and copyright protection in the fashion industry.
    Incidentally this falls in direct contradiction to the Idea that IP and copyright encourage innovation, because of the fact that there is no copyright protection in this industry, there is open space for creativity. Designers can take inspiration from previous designers and create their own masterpiece. A knockoff is never the same as the brand design. There is a difference in material quality and the power of brand recognition and as it was put in the video “ those are not our type of clients anyways”.

    2. In her talk, Lee compares computer software like Microsoft and Linux to McDonald’s and Chinese fast food restaurants. How does this comparison work and in what ways does she bring in the question of intellectual property rights into these distinctions?

    In the case of MacDonald, she was referring to the 10 years it took to derive a cost-effective way of removing the bone out of the chicken and the creation of the Chicken McNuggets. A decision made at the micro level have a larger effect at the macro level because then within a couple months, it was such a hit, they introduced it across the entire McDonald’s system in the country.
    From the quote “We think of McDonald’s as sort of the Microsoft of dining experiences. We can think of Chinese restaurants perhaps as Linux, sort of an open-source thing, right?” she is indicating that while MacDonald strives to innovate and invests in R&D, just like Microsoft does, and create unique products that it can distribute across its ecosystem; Chinese restaurants are just like Linux a free idea that anyone can take and create their own wonders. This fact was clearly indicated with her giving examples of the wide varieties of Chinese food restaurants across the globe.

    3. Marcia Angel lays out a trenchant critique of the pharmaceutical industry and it’s use/misuse of intellectual property rights. What are her main conclusions and how does she support such conclusions?

    Marcia Angel’s main point, was that pharmaceutical companies are focused in retaining profits and enriching the company. They consider the Us their main profit area due to the lack of regulation of drug prices in the United States.
    The FDA uses 2 criteria to classify the drugs. The molecular structure (which could be the old drug with added parts) and whether its an improvement on existing drugs.

    They leverage the week rules that guide FDA approval to bring old modified drugs, rebrand them with new name and serve it to the consumer. This strategy brings in profits with reduced R&d spending.
    Pharmaceutical industry leverages their Ip by creating trivial variation of existing drugs to exploit the marketplace. While the FDA is responsible for testing and ensuring the drugs are safe through documented clinical trials, they do not compare these drugs against similar variants. Instead, all the pharmaceutical company has to do is compare it to a sugar pill (placebo). This low bar unable them to control the marketplace and ensure that constant new drugs are presented and through marketing directly to doctors prescribed to individuals.

    Like

    1. Hi Ervis,
      Great job with your post, I enjoyed your answer to the third question and appreciate the way you section off your key points to answer the question. Although I’m sure the FDA does their best to regulate drugs and prices they still fail to protect people from Big Pharma’s absurd prices and questionable drugs. Again, great job with your post.

      Like

    2. Hi Ervis,
      Great post! While I understand your points on #3, it is not true for all pharmaceutical companies. I work for Novo Nordisk and they offer a lot of different ways for patients to receive their medications at a reduced rate, sometimes even for free. They offer different customer programs and all you have to do is sign up. These are called our Patient Assistant Programs (PAPs) and you can read more about them here. https://www.novonordisk-us.com/patient-help/access-and-affordability.html I do believe that more companies should try and make a change in the pharmaceutical industry to help their patients and put them first, but I have seen and been able to learn that Novo Nordisk does truly put patients first as it states in the Novo Nordisk Way.

      Like

      1. Hi Jessica,

        You make some great points about the pharmaceutical companies. Your first hand experience, beats all the suppositions that the so called experts can come up with. I am glad your company behaves in a responsible manner. In my opinion that just makes good business sense. A company’s reputation is its most precious asset and rumors such as the doctor was discussing in the video really give the whole industry a bad name.

        Like

    3. Hi Ervis, great post I really enjoyed reading it as it demonstrates a lot of insight. After reading your post one thing that really caught my attention is your response to the third question as I totally agree with your statement that “Pharmaceutical industry leverages their Ip by creating trivial variation of existing drugs to exploit the marketplace.” I believe they do this to the lack of regulation and this is something that should be changes in the years coming in order to improve our healthcare system.

      Like

    4. Hi Ervis,
      I enjoy reading your post!
      I find it interesting for the pharmaceutical section. But, unfortunately, I have to disagree with Marcia Angel’s point. I have been working in the generic pharmaceutical industry for about five years, and the development cost for generic drugs is also considered expensive. The main costs for the generic pharmaceuticals industry including the R&D , litigation, and BE study, filing, and labor costs. It depends on the difficulty of the drugs, and some drugs might even not be able to launch. Despite the developing cost for the generic industry, the brand drug face much more challenges to launch. Therefore, I agree that the brand company should set the price bar high enough to recover their investment.
      Thank you,
      Cici Ouyang

      Like

    5. Hi Ervis, I agree that IP rights do not spark creativity and innovation. It has been shown that markets with heavy barriers/regulations tend to be slower to develop. I think the higher sales markets shown in the video (food, auto, clothing, and furniture) are superior in terms of creativity.

      Did you think the chart of “Gross Sales by Industry” was a bit misleading though? In this specific instance, I think these markets perform better (in terms of Sales) simply because they are basic human necessities, while films, books, and music are not. Correlation, not causation.

      Like

    6. Hi Ervis,

      Great post! I enjoyed reading your take on the articles above, particularly the article on the fashion industry. I thought it was really interesting how Tom Ford brought up the idea that the consumers who buy knock-offs were never really there consumers in the first place. In fact, I think that the whole idea of knock-offs can actually sometimes be helpful when it comes to selling products because it helps contribute to the idea that a certain product is “in trend” at the moment. With the rise of tiktok and other social media platforms, the cycle of clothing and accessories being “trendy” occur much more quickly and have often given rise to making the original designer’s own products quite popular, more so than they might have been otherwise.

      Like

  2. 1) My reflection on the fashion industry video is that everyone in the industry copies each other since there is no IP or copyright protection. However, there is a trademark protection and that is an unfair system. Designers can get creative by take a design from someone, making very little changes, and putting their prestigious brand on it while selling it for more. The trademark protection would protect the new design even if the original designer wanted to do something about it. There are some scenarios where people get creative with an original design and improve it completely. That i can respect and feel like copyright protection is not necessary.

    2) The comparison Lee was saying is that McDonald’s is like Microsoft and Chinese takeout is like Linux. What Lee was saying is Microsoft does many innovative and creative things for our society while spending money on R&D or marketing. However, Linux is free and anyone can get innovative and create something similar to what Microsoft is doing. That is how she ties in intellectual property rights because there is many Chinese takeout restaurants (Linux) but only one McDonald’s (Microsoft). There can be tons of innovative ideas in Linux similar to what Microsoft is doing but Microsoft has the prestige.

    3) Marcia’s main point is that pharmaceutical companies try to maintain profits by changing the drug prices. The strategy they do is modify old and outdated drugs, change the brand name, and charge a lot towards the consumer. Pharmaceutical companies can modify their IP by creating newer versions of an old drug to enter the drug market. The FDA ensures each drug are safe but they do not compare the new drug with similar competitors. The new drug might have more marketing and would be easily more recognized and prescribed other than the original. The IP would not be breached and that is pretty concerning.

    Like

    1. Hi Anthony,
      Great job with your post, I enjoyed your answer to question number 2 as I also said something similar. I did not however think about Linux innovating as much as Microsoft but like you said Microsoft has a global brand recognition. I can also agree with what you said about it being ok for things in the fashion industry to be made better instead of copied. Again great job with your post.

      Like

    2. Hi anthony,

      Great explanation of the video on part 3. I found an interesting article from an advocacy group ,that mentioned one of the reasons Big Pharma raises prices.

      “Higher prices allow drug companies to make bigger rebate payments, which go to pharmacy benefit managers, insurance companies, and employers, rather than to patients. In a functioning free market, competition drives down prices. Most drugs, including branded drugs, have competitors”

      https://www.ahip.org/news/press-releases/big-pharma-kicks-off-2021-with-hundreds-of-drug-price-hikes

      Like

    3. Hi Anthony,

      In my opinion, the fashion industry almost seems like idea theft. The rules in place seem as if they allow any designer to take a competitor’s clothing and make it their own, as long as they change the logo. It really incentivizes the need to create anything original, especially with the study showing that low IP clothing outperforms the truly original ideas.

      Like

  3. 1. Based on the information presented above, I do not believe IP rights protection relies on people being innovative in order to secure larger rewards for their efforts. The strongest argument for this stance is Johanna Blakely’s TED Talk on the fashion industry and the overall lack of creativity. Per her discussion, and the information presented by the group, unique IP is almost non-existent in the fashion industry due to weak copyright laws. Any designer can copy a competitor’s work with no consequences as long as they can apply their own unique logo to the creation. While this may saturate the market with the same clothing, the low IP designs tend to be more popular than high-effort IPs, as the low IPs already appeal to customer wants while a new design may be a risk and not sell as well. With this in mind, it is more cost-effective simply to copy another designer’s when the practice is low-risk, high-reward.

    2. In her TED Talk, Jennifer Lee compares the uniqueness and spread of both Chicken McNuggets from McDonald’s and General Tso’s Chicken across the United States. The McNugget was a unique product which took the chain ten years to make, and they quickly spread it across all of the their chains, and not long after their competitors tried creating the same product to match the success. General Tso’s chicken was also a unique dish, but its popularity had other Chinese restaurants quickly adopting the dish over the course of a decade to maximize profits and attract customers. Lee then relates both foods to Microsoft (the McNugget) and Linux (General Tso), where their products are open-sourced ideas where, after a period of time, new competitors enter the market and copy their ideas but with their own unique twist.

    3. Dr. Marcia Angell’s first critique of the pharmaceutical industry is how these companies hide behind the excuse of the high costs of research and development in order to cover the research costs for new medications they produce. In fact, these companies make huge profits off of their new medications, and charge high prices not to cover R&D, but to pay for marketing and to pay doctor’s to promote their medications. Dr. Angell also believes new drug IPs are too protected by government rules, allowing a new medication to be given a monopoly and marketing right for an extended period of time. It is not until this right ends that any company can create and market a cheap generic version of the same medication. Dr. Angell believes the way around these pharma IP issues is to allow new drugs to be compared against old medications, allow Medicare to regulate the prices of these medications, and to also regulate prices from medications through public research.

    Like

  4. 1. In the fashion industry it has been decided that only copyright protection can be applied due to apparel design being too utilitarian and I agree with this statement. For men’s fashion there’s only shirts, hoodies, pants, shorts, and suits all of which look the same and have the same functionality, the only difference being the name of the brand. In woman’s fashion there is only tops, pants, shorts, hoodies, and dresses all of which look the same and have the same functionality, the only difference being the name of the brand. My point being is that there’s really nothing new in the fashion industry to invent in terms of an items function, the only thing to invent is new designs and even then, trends in design tend to repeat themselves as time continues. With that in mind, the fashion industry has unlimited room to recreate the same things if that makes sense.
    2. I thought the comparison Lee made between McDonald’s and Microsoft and Chinese Food and Linux was a great analogy easy for any one to understand. McDonald’s has always been a company to continue innovating and incorporate new tasteful items into their menus across the globe which everyone seems to love. Microsoft as well continues to innovate and adapt in the tech field for everyone across the world to enjoy new tech. In addition, both companies started with one good idea many years ago and grew into global giants. Chinese food and Linux on the other hand offer the same thing every day, all year around with no change/innovation which is something that separates global giants from other companies.
    3. It’s no secret that big pharma is ran by a bunch of crooks and all they care about is money. Most recently, Covid-19 vaccines were free to people however it was not made free by the pharmaceutical companies, they got their money from governments, if they did not then the vaccine would not have been free to common people. When it comes to drugs, the pharmaceutical industry is not so different than the fashion industry, they just create something similar with a new name and charge whatever they want for it and most times people don’t have a choice but to pay.

    Like

    1. Hi Arman,

      Regarding the McDonald’s – Microsoft analogy, I think it is important to note that both companies were the initial innovators in their fields. McDonalds with fast food, and Microsoft in tech/computers. They laid the framework for their respective markets and dominated as the only ones there for a considerable amount of time. Now, many new competitors have entered each marketplace offering similar products, but with slight variations as to not be complete copycats.

      Like

    2. Hi Arman, great post. After reading your post I totally agree with your idea the the pharmaceutical companies are crooks and all they care about is money. For instance take a look at the current opioid epidemic we live in. An epidemic brought forth by Purdue pharma a company that paid doctors commission in order to prescribe their pill OxyCodin with that prescriptions to this pill rose at astronomical levels and now years later we see the repercussions to this drug that was not properly administered or regulated during its start. This company is known for paying millions of dollars in lobbying which shows that all they care is about less regulations and more money for them.

      Here is an interesting video on the causes of the epidemic

      Like

  5. 1. Since, there is no copyright protect for utilitarian act, fashion designers have actually been able to elevate utilitarian design, things to cover our naked bodies, into something that we consider art. Because there’s no copyright protection in this industry, there’s a very open and creative ecology of creativity.
    Stuart Weitzman is a very successful shoe designer, has complained a lot about people copying him, but in one interview I read, he said it has really forced him to up his game. This instance made him to come up with new ideas, new things that would be hard to copy. One day he came up with this Bowden-wedge heel, that has to be made out of steel or titanium; if anyone make it from some sort of cheaper material, it’ll actually crack in two. It forced him to be a little more innovative.
    In popular jazz music great, Charlie Parker, He said that one of the reasons he invented bebop was that he was pretty sure that white musicians wouldn’t be able to replicate the sound. He wanted to make it too difficult to copy, and that’s what fashion designers are doing all the time. They’re trying to put together a signature look, an aesthetic that reflects who they are. When people knock it off, everybody knows because they’ve put that look out on the runway, and it’s a coherent aesthetic is the logic behind copyright protection — which is that without ownership, there is no incentive to innovate — might be really surprised by both the critical success of the fashion and art industry and the economic success of this industry.

    2. Lee compared McDonald’s as sort of the Microsoft is productivity software plus services when comes to dining experiences because McDonald’s has garnered a lot of attention, a lot of respect, for basically standardizing the menu, decor and dining experience in post-World War II America through a centralized headquarters out of Illinois. While to that of Chinese restaurants perhaps as Linux, sort of an open-source thing, Where ideas from one person can be copied and propagated across the entire system, that there can be specialized versions of Chinese food, depending on the region. Compelling that chinese restaurants able to make their own applications on the open source software as per the requirements of region change or dishes change. Chinese restaurants have done largely the same thing, I would argue, with the menu and the decor, even the restaurant name, but without a centralized headquarters. For example, in New Orleans we have Cajun Chinese food, where they serve Sichuan alligator and sweet and sour crawfish. And in Philadelphia, you have Philadelphia cheesesteak roll, which is like an egg roll on the outside and cheesesteak on the inside and it is discovered not only in Philadelphia, but also in Atlanta.

    3. Pfizer is not unique most of the big drug companies have been charged with similar kinds of illegal practices moreover several top selling drugs such as Vioxx were promoted widely after they were known to be unsafe. And, In some cases the manufacturers deliberately suppress information about the risks. Drug companies say that high prices are necessary to cover their high R&D cost that’s not quite true their high prices are really necessary to cover their enormous marketing and administrative expenditures and to maintain their obscene profits had its enormous influence on medical practice and public policy particularly the current health reform efforts.
    American drug companies spent on marketing last year, the industry will publicly account for only the amount it spends on sales representatives. these were activities no more than 15 billion dollars that’s an estimate no more that left fifty five billion dollars unaccounted. This money spent in terms of gifts to Harvard Medical School you find right up in the top few donors of the major pharmaceutical companies. Mainly here into the education of doctors drug companies they foremost continuing medical education which doctors have to get in order to keep their licenses or state licenses.

    Pharma paid for other medical conferences, educational materials gifts, meals, junkets no doctor has to pay for any of his own meals if he doesn’t want to. In fact everywhere two doctors are gathered together so too is the pharmaceutical industry, to make doctors write the prescriptions, drugs require prescriptions and they do the clinical research. They write the papers and textbooks they teach the medical students they provide the continuing medical education it is important to win the hearts and minds of the physicians. The medical profession has largely abdicated its responsibility to educate its own to educate doctors
    about the use of prescription drugs and they’ve abdicated that responsibility to companies with a clear conflict of interest. They don’t have an education budget it’s marketing and that’s what it is it’s self-evidently absurd to look to a company for unbiased impartial information.

    The industry has produced only 75 out of total 667 are truly innovative improvements 446 are not considered to be new drugs but are called as Me-to drugs. Me-to drugs is not just a matter of wanting a share of a large expandable market it’s also a way of getting or extending monopoly rights. when the monopoly expires other companies may sell the same drug and these are called generic drugs and they’re much less expensive as well so this has real consequences.

    The first and it would take an act of Congress the first would be to require that the FDA be able to insist that new drugs be compared with existing drugs to treat the same condition and not just with sugar pills this would have enormous ripple effects it would end the me-to glut this would be done as a condition of approval. Because very few me- to drugs could meet that standard.

    There will be fewer drugs and better drugs it would reduce the huge marketing expenditures because most marketing is for me to drugs trying to convince people that these are really wonderful drugs if you have a genuinely important drug a genuinely breakthrough drug, you don’t have to advertise it on the nightly news every night doctors will read about it they’ll prescribe it to the world they will cure for cancer and the world will beat a path to your door. So the drugs that are being advertised are these me to drugs if you ended that glut you would probably greatly reduce advertising and three you would force the industry to do what it claims it’s already doing that is to put its research efforts on genuinely innovative drugs and not me-to drugs.

    Secondly, to permit Medicare and to create formalities at regulate prices. Third, we do have to have some sort of limitations on the prices charge for drugs that stem from publicly funded research. the drugs that stem from publicly funded research and then are licensed into drug companies are so supposed to be made available to the public on reasonable terms.

    Dr. Marcia’s advise start taking few drugs as possible when necessary, because many Americans are now the victims of what’s called polypharmacy which means taking many drugs at once and this is particularly true of senior citizens. some senior citizens take five, six, seven drugs every single day these drugs have not been tested with each other clinical trials which are sponsored by the industry and often designed by the industry usually test drugs in young people, because they’re less likely to experience side effects and they’re tested in young people who are taking no other drugs.

    When an older person takes five or six or seven drugs that person is really taking a certain risk we don’t know how they all act together in an older person. second, avoid new drugs new drugs are seldom tested and older people or in conjunction with other drugs and they haven’t been on the market long enough to see the side effects when a drug isn’t approved. The data on effectiveness are usually reasonably good they come out of clinical trials the data unsafety are less good because it takes a larger population and a more typical population to see signals of danger. It is always advisable to follow diet along with exercises. Because, with type 2 diabetes and the prevention of type 2 diabetes and when they compared exercise and diet with drugs the exercise and diet blows away the drugs much more effective.

    Like

  6. 1. The word “utilitarian” means ‘social welfare’ and this theory was championed by great economists Bentham and Mill with the objective of making every policy universal in the sense of attaining the greatest good for the greatest number.

    The primary essence of this theory is that the industrial progress and cultural goods can create a better and important economic impact on the society. Consequently, to fill the need of promoting the inventions and creations, there should be nominal certification that the outcome will be superior as compared to the expenses incurred for his work.
    Likewise as the name suggests, the incentive theory validates the duty of society to respect the innovators and their right to ownership because it brings profit for the whole society.

    2. Lee cocmpare the chinese food to linux as it is open source and it can be copied and modified. Where ideas from one person can be copies and prpogated across the entire system and there can be specialised version of chinese food depending on the region. In case of macdonalds the food made is so hard to copy or it can take very long time for some to copy, it unique. The chinese food is like utilatrian and macdonalds food is artistic/unique.

    3.
    a. Take as few drugs as possible dangers of polypharmacy – The drugs are tested on younger people who have not taken any other drugs and have no other medical conditions. The older people taking multiple drugs are taking a risk and no one know how will it react in their body

    b. Avoid new drugs – seldom tested in older people – as they haven’t been on the market long enough to see the side effects and the data on safety is less good because it takes a larger population to see signals of dangers.

    c. Remember importance of lifestyle choices
    d. Ignore drug advertising – push mute button!
    e. Beware of internet information

    Like

  7. 1. In regard to the fashion industry, I do not think that the theory of intellectual property protection relies on human beings only being innovative and creative if incentives and rewards are in place. Fashion relies more on the new looks and the latest trends for that fashionista demographic. Fashion designers are creative individuals because they have that drive to provide the world with new, bold looks. Copyrights are hard to establish and have certain standards that should be followed worldwide. In the one example, the copyright could exist on a gown made by one designer and then a new designer decides to make that same gown but 3 inches shorter; technically from a copyright perspective the shorter gown is a new garment. I do not think that copyrights prevent or stimulate creativity in the fashion industry. A designer will have a new garment in mind with a specific demographic and that’s what inspires their creativity.

    2. Computer software like Microsoft is like McDonald’s and Chinese fast food is like Linux. It works as McDonald’s has become a leader in fast food and patenting items like the chicken nugget. Whereas Chinese food we think is rooted from China and Asian cuisine but really it has been adapted to the different regions across the world. Each country has its own interpretation of Chinese food based on the likes and tastes of their target markets. McDonald’s for the most part can be different in each area, but chicken nuggets are a staple on the menu. Intellectual property rights can be compared to how McDonald’s used its patent for chicken nuggets whereas Chinese food is different around the world and does not have a true root.

    3. Angel’s main conclusions are that patents are misused in the pharmaceutical industry. Patents are impacted directly by the drug companies. The drug companies directly influence the how doctors use the drug, their clinical practice, and the education of the public. Patents are very difficult to legalize especially between placebos and actual drugs.

    Like

    1. Hi Natalie, I thought you provided a great response. Your comparison between the software and food makes a lot of sense when you have it explained like that. Microsoft and McDonald’s are both leaders in their industries, whereas regular Chinese food and Linux have been interpreted differently, depending on where you are. The intellectual property law certainly would apply to specific items on the McDonald’s menu, just as it would for programs within Microsoft, but you make a lot of sense with stating how the law wouldn’t apply to generic things, like Chinese food or Linux.

      Like

    2. Hi Natalie – This is a very well thought out and interesting post, and the items you highlighted are great examples in both the fashion industry and McDonalds chicken nugget processing. I especially agree with the fashion industry perspective and in my post I mentioned that the value really lies within the brand itself versus the physical cloths they produce. The innovation and creativity and trendsetting that top brands produce lies within their IP and ability to create new and exciting things. A great view into this is creativity is actually the new Cruella live action movie from Disney where they show in great detail how the process on new cloth creation is thought through and created.

      https://studybreaks.com/tvfilm/cruella-and-the-fashion-industry/

      Like

  8. The idea that human beings will be innovative and creative only when there are incentives or rewards in place is flawed. For instance, as the fashion industry video outlines, fashion in which there is no copyright protection, fashion designers come up with really artistic and creative designs all of the time. It is important to note however that copying in this market is something that is normal that does not mean that is not the norm and it does not indicate that it stops creativity on the contrary, designers try to find the most creative designs each season, Another example is open source software whose incentives and rewards are minimal nonetheless, the creativity seen in these software are incredible.

    The comparison between different computer software and fast food restaurants works because on one hand we have Microsoft a closed sourced system compared to McDonald’s a patented franchise and on the other hand we have Linux and open source system compared to Chinese fast food restaurants with no patents. These comparisons bring forth the question of how intellectual property affects many things in the world as we can see through her comparison the effects of having no patents has had on what we know as Chinese food. As it can be modified and copied all across the globe with little to no regulations.

    Marcia Angel’s conclusion is that pharmaceutical companies’ purpose is to create and retain profits through their patents instead of helping the healthcare system. This shows the abominable greed these companies demonstrate through the use of intellectual properties as they set extremely high prices to drugs and patent them that way they have a monopoly for a long time claiming they spend millions on R & D nonetheless, the new formulas are not of extremely innovative.

    Liked by 1 person

  9. 1. I’m afraid I have to disagree with the statement that “the theory of intellectual property rights protection rests on the idea that human beings will be innovative and creative only when a material system of incentives and rewards is in place.” Based on the fashion industry cases, the lack of protection is the complex steps and definitions to judge whether the design was plagiarizing. On the other hand, there’s no doubt that most human beings will be innovative and creative when a material system of incentives and rewards is in place.
    2. Lee compares McDonald’s to Microsoft. Lee also resembles the Chinese restaurant to Linux since there is open-sourced and everyone can write the codes. Chinese food is different from location to location.
    3. Marcia states that the pharmaceutical companies set the drug price high and generate colossal profit, claiming to recover the R&D costs. In addition, Marcia says that pharmaceuticals upgrade the existing drug to obtain extra profits.

    Like

    1. Hey Yongshi. I agree with you on your assessment of the fashion industry and innovation. At first, I agreed with the idea that humans need to be incentivized to innovate. I’m sure Steve Jobs, Bill Gates, and Mark Zuckerberg all had ideas of making money when they created their technological innovations. Who wouldn’t want to profit off of such ideas? But after watching the video, I found it fascinating how profitable industries without IP policies are. Fashion was a great example for this argument, showing that designers who aren’t afraid of copyright laws have the freedom to create innovative designs. Imagine the lost potential for new and improved social networks or smartphones due to IP protections for big companies like Apple and Facebook.

      Like

    2. Hello Yongshi, great post. I also did disagree with the concept of individuals not being creative when compensation is not involved. The fashion example proves that people can be creative, even when plagiarizing might be involved. Your point, though, about people being creative for incentives anyway does make sense, as there will always be those who are greedy and will only produce with promised income or prizes.

      Like

    3. Hi Yongshi,

      I agree with your sentiment that the theory of intellectual property rights protection rests on the idea that human beings will be innovative and creative only when a material system of incentives and rewards is not in place for the fashion industry. Due to the fact that there is no copyright protection for big fashion brands this lead to more copying from other brands to ride the wave of a season’s success. You typically see this with Winter fashion catalogues for stuff like leather and fur jackets from Gucchi or Prada. They always follow trends to seize on high consumer demand through mass appeal and advertisement of similar complimenting products.

      The only protections in place for the fashion industry are in the trademarks for their own logos so that nobody can steal their merchandise’s revenue from a sale. Like you mentioned before, in your response there’ no incentive to be different if everyone will try and copy each other to set the tone for a seasonal sale in order to gain as much traction as possible in consumer outreach. Therefore, the fashion industry has little to no IP protections.

      Like

  10. 1. As it pertains to the fashion video, I would have to disagree with the theory that humans will be innovative only when a material system of rewards are in place. In the video, it becomes understood that there is no copyright protection in fashion, allowing different designers to copy each other or use elements of each other’s clothing to create their own. There is however trademark protection which prevents competition from creating a carbon copy of an article of clothing that has a trademarked logo on the front. This balance lends itself to the full creativity of fashion designers because they are not forced to keep ideas off the runway due to copyright laws. We are able to see many colorful and innovative designs since companies are allowed to be as creative as they choose as long as they don’t copy someone’s trademark. I think it’s easy for us to assume the opposite when exposed to so many industries with IP protection. I for one was surprised when watching this video to see so many industries without IP protection be so successful in their gross sales.

    2. Lee’s comparison of Microsoft to McDonald’s and Chinese food to Linux are very well thought out on the basis that the food companies mirror the tech companies. Mcdonald’s compares well to Microsoft where both companies spend time and money on innovations in their respective fields. For McDonald’s it was the chicken mcnugget, something it took them 10 years and multiple attempts at other chicken dishes to create. Chinese food compares will to Linux because each restaurant is specialized and unique in its own way. This compares well to Linux, an open source software company that allows for customization and sharing of concepts between users. In the video, Lee does a good job of showing all the various iterations of Chinese restaurants around the world. What she points out is how the food varies depending on the region. The concept of the restaurant is the same but the menu options, amongst other things, are different. This is very similar to open source software where the core software is the same but it allows for user customization.

    3. Marcia Angel’s main conclusion in the video is that pharmaceutical companies emphasize profit retention through the help of unregulated drug prices in the US. She claims that these companies are able to do so by stretching the weaker guidelines of the FDA. They are able to repurpose, for lack of a better term, older drugs, rebrand them and redistribute them at a modified cost to consumers. This grants them higher profit with lower research and development costs. These practices allow pharmaceutical companies to protect their intellectual properties while spending less to develop them. The FDA involvement in this process is simply to confirm the drugs are safe for consumption but not the legitimacy they have compared to prior iterations. Their concern is the newer drug is an improvement over older variations, but do not seem to concern themselves with the additional details.

    Like

    1. Hey Tom, I enjoyed reading your post here. I agree that the Microsoft and McDonald’s comparison makes a lot of sense. Their nuggets are certainly something that everyone is familiar with, and with the years it took for them to implement these, it makes sense why they are well-known. The Chinese restaurants, although similar, do have their own ways of making things their own, which is like Linux, that allows the ability to customize and utilize individual options.

      Like

    2. Hi Tom,

      Excellent post! Very well researched and to the point. I agree with your statements own the drug industry like Marcia mentioned. The fact that these drug companies can skew the results to benefit their own revenues by commissioning only placebo tests for FDA approval is truly sickening.

      For one, there’s no accuracy behind the effectiveness of these drugs from the fact that there’s no apt comparisons for identical drugs treating different illnesses.

      Secondly, the placebo effect means that the drug is simply better than a null control group. This means that the drug just does something to the body. There’s no benchmark for its effectiveness because it is compared to nothing.

      American drug companies only care about making a profit at the consumer’s expense as they barely do any R&D testing and merely just advertise and advertise their product away on television, radio and online to gain as much consumer traffic to their revenue growth as possible. What’s worse about this is that consumers are charged at higher prices for these drugs as well because the market isn’t properly regulated.

      Therefore, I propose that we expand on federal legislation like The Affordable Care Act to help reduce the financial burden the pharmaceutical industry puts on the American people. They need to understand that just because they have a patent that gives them IP rights to a drug doesn’t mean that they should market it without proper testing as well as proper price controls to ensure what’s best for the consumer while also creating a satisfactory profit margin.

      Like

  11. 1. The theory of intellectual property rights protection rests on the idea that human beings will be innovative and creative only when a material system of incentives [motivations] and rewards [price] is in place. What is your assessment of this characterization? Reflect on it in the context of the fashion industry video.

    Humans will be imaginative and creative only if a material system of incentives and rewards is in place—this could be somewhat true, as I believe Fashion is regarded as a work of art. This showcases a brand’s uniqueness and creativity. Every creative person expects to be recognized for their efforts. The ultimate one would suffer more if there were no adequate copyright systems in place because that is the result of their own efforts. Any creator would always hope for recognition and to become well-known for a piece of art. The appreciation would be his/her rewards, which they had been looking forward to. As said in the video, Charlie Parker, a renowned jazz musician, stated that one of the reasons he created bebop was as he was convinced that white musicians would be unable to recreate the sound. He wanted to make it tough to replicate, which is something that fashion designers do all the time. They’re attempting to create a signature appearance, an aesthetic that expresses their personality. It would also make it possible for people to recognize the copied work. It is extremely astonishing to learn that –no concrete regulations have been imposed to secure the pieces of Art in the world.

    2. In her talk, Lee compares computer software like Microsoft and Linux to McDonald’s and Chinese fast-food restaurants. How does this comparison work and in what ways does she bring the question of intellectual property rights into these distinctions?

    In her Ted talks, Lee compares chicken nuggets, which took ten years to develop but quickly became popular, to a new Microsoft technology that surpassed the competitors in manufacturing. While comparing General Chinese Tso to Linux, an open-source operating system. She intends to convey that Tso’s original recipe is similar to an open-source that can be adopted and modified with minimum adjustments to create a new recipe for luring customers and profit.

    3. Marcia Angel lays out a trenchant critique of the pharmaceutical industry and its use/misuse of intellectual property rights. What are her main conclusions and how does she support such conclusions?
    According to Marcia Angel, the rise in drug expenditure can be related to the use of highly-priced newer drugs rather than older, less expensive ones. Prices for the most commonly prescribed medications rise many times every year. Price rises are typical in the sector, allowing pharma companies to spend in R&D.
    Between 2000 and 2008, 667 new medications were approved and released to the market. However, just 25% of the medications were novel, while the remaining 75% were simply Me-too drugs. Furthermore, FDA approval enforces a low threshold of quality.
    Whenever a new medicine is launched in the market, the government provides financial assistance. company will have exclusive marketing rights for a set amount of time. When a monopoly expires, other businesses may sell the same drug at a lower cost, which is known as a generic drug.
    Drugs were increasing in popularity as a result of the exploitation of advertising. Advertising for one me-too drug promotes the sales of other drugs in the same class since more individuals are convinced that they have a problem, so all me too drug sales grow.
    Me -too medications primarily target disorders such as high cholesterol and blood pressure, which might have catastrophic implications but are not diseases in and of them.

    Like

    1. Hi srilasyabanigandlapati,

      I enjoyed reading your post; particularly your mention of General Tsos in your answer to the second question. I thought it was fascinating how General Tsos Chicken is such an iconic staple in Chinese American restaurants yet General Tso did not even recognize the General Tsos Chicken that Lee showed him. It really showcases the power of open-source, particularly how open-source can foster creativity and innovation to a point where the original recipe is no longer recognizable.

      Like

  12. 1.) The theory of intellectual property rights protection rests on the idea that human beings will be innovative and creative only when a material system of incentives and rewards is in place. What is your assessment of this characterization? Reflect on it in the context of the fashion industry video.

    I think when we’re talking about incentive and what drives human nature to want to produce more, we should be thinking about what the material system of incentives really is, because it doesn’t always have to be financial in nature, for example money. More of a psychological discussion in nature, the core root of what drives people can be way deeper than financial gain; for example an individual could be creating a product or service that has personal meaning to them or a specific experience they had. Many folks operating in the non-profit space are prime examples of people doing things for the greater good. Then there are individuals driven by malice, such as China threat actors and the massive amounts of IP, usually in the form of R&D and trade secrets that they steal from companies each year. They do this to advance their own countries position in the global rank. It’s estimated that Chinese IP theft has cost the United States $225 billion to $600 billion a year! In the case of the fashion industry, I do believe the value lies in the brand and not the design of the clothing itself, rather the continued innovation through design that these companies produce is why people select their own company’s product over another’s.

    https://foreignpolicy.com/2019/10/16/china-intellectual-property-theft-progress/

    Click to access IP_Commission_Report_Update.pdf

    2.) In her talk, Lee compares computer software like Microsoft and Linux to McDonald’s and Chinese fast food restaurants. How does this comparison work and in what ways does she bring in the question of intellectual property rights into these distinctions?

    This is actually a great analogy when you think about the standardization and relatively closed source platform that is Windows/Microsoft and Linux being open source in nature that allows for creativity, development, and customization at the user level. Much like Chinese food restaurants have similar menu items across the board, the way they’re prepared, taste, and presented varies.

    It’s also worth mentioning that while McDonalds has changed the landscape due to their process standardization with their restaurant business it’s always been debated that McDonalds is actually in the real estate business, kind of like how Microsoft has made a MAJOR pivot into the cloud storage, server, licensing space which is a similar comparison to McDonalds being in real estate. So I believe these companies are similar in more ways than one.

    Like

  13. I do not believe that people are only creative when incentives are in place. With the fashion example, people are motivated to create amazing designs as a passion, rather than just to be promised something in return. Copying does occur constantly, but it does not discourage creation from other people in the field.

    With the example regarding Mcdonald’s and Chinese food, this is meant to explain that Mcdonald’s has well-known options that are not easily copyable, and have also served as a staple of our culture for years. Compared to Microsoft, this example makes a lot of sense. Microsoft has implemented certain programs and softwares, along with specific pieces of technology and devices, that have been ever-improving. It shows that with intellectual properties in place, it might be hard to replicate something that is so familiar. The comparison to Chinese food restaurants is that they all produce similar items that are not very distinguishable, which is used against Linux, which apparently uses similar services as other comparable programs.

    Marcia Angel explains that companies are trying to explain that high prices are needed in order to cover research and development expenses. These prices are apparently used to cover the marketing and administrative costs in order to maintain profits. She states that drugs must be approved by the FDA, and that companies may sell similar drugs when a monopoly expires.

    Like

  14. I think that the fashion industry is actually the perfect example for this theory regarding incentives and rewards. There is obviously the main focus of the fact that you can’t just create the exact same shirt someone else makes and have it trademarked with their brand. What the fashion industry does allow is creativity of design and the ability to take something like a Gucci or Supreme shirt and make your own twist on it. I believe that this is sometime for the reward that may come with having something off brand and cheaper but at the same time wouldn’t be possible without the creative outreach the industry encourages.

    What Lee is trying to put across in this comment is the fact that with these programs similar to fast food restaurants they are always going to haver similar tools to offer. Thinking of fast food every restaurant has their burger and fries and chicken options same with Chinese food, you know what they have without even looking at the menu. It is the same with these programs and their features in the sense that you know what they are going to offer there just may be a little twist in the way each is set up or run or the features it may have.

    I think that Angel makes a great point in what she discusses about the pharmaceutical industry and intellectual property rights. I know for one that they need to develop a better policy and set standards to avoid monopolistic behavior in the industry. For example, I remember a few years ago reading about the prices of epipen and how they were through the roof to the point where some users could barely afford them. That is eye opening to me and leads me to believe there is a lot fo work in the industry that needs to be done regarding intellectual property.

    Like

  15. 1. After careful consideration of the articles above, I have come to the conclusion that humans don’t necessarily need a material system of incentives and rewards in order to foster innovation and creativity. Looking specifically at the fashion industry, which historically has low intellectual property protection rights, designers can take inspiration from fashion history and designers and incorporate it into their designs. There are people who exploit this, particularly large fast fashion retailers such as Shein and H&M. Shein has come under fire numerous times for mimicking high-end designer brands and passing it off as its own; however, due to the lack of IP protection, nothing can be done about this. However, at the same time, many modern designers, in fact, have creatively recycled everyday plastic objects and created unique fashion statement pieces, despite the lack of IP and copyright protection in the fashion industry.

    2. Microsoft and McDonald’s are quite similar in that they both have developed standardized products and branding that stems from years of product research and development. Both industry giants amassed their popularity and success through a centralized headquarters and their unique products. Chinese restaurants, similar to Linux, both stemmed from a principle of “spontaneous self-organization” where small decisions made on a micro level resulted in a major impact on the macro level. Linux, an open source software, is open to variations and modifications by individuals and no one individual owns the right to the software. Like Linus, Chinese restaurants have huge amounts of variation despite their large presence on all seven continents. For example, fried gelato is served in Chinese restaurants found in Italy whereas fortune cookies are served in Chinese American restaurants. Additionally, there have been all sorts of different fusions and modifications to Chinese cuisine in that when one goes back to China to ask for the same foods, native Chinese people have never heard of those foods. Lee also brings up intellectual property rights by bringing up the example of Lem Sen, a Chinese man who stated that his recipe for chop-suey was stolen by an American man who had profited immensely from his recipe. McDonald’s like Microsoft spent time researching and developing unique products (the McNugget) whereas Chinese food, like Linux, cannot be contributed to one specific source.

    3. Marcia Angel describes how pharmaceutical companies charge high prices for their products by telling the public that the cost comes from the research & development of that product where in actuality, it comes from the cost of marketing, administrative expenses, and paying fines to settle illegal company charges. Marcia Angel provided statistics and facts to support her conclusions. Two statistics that she mentioned that caught my interest were the following: only 11% of drugs that were approved by the FDA were both improvements and NME between 2000 and 2007 and only 15% of innovative research was conducted by drug companies. The lack of stringent regulations by the FDA surrounding drug prices stemming from public research has resulted in people unable to pay for their prescriptions and insurance co-pays.

    Like

  16. 1. I disagree that the theory of intellectual property rights protection rests on the idea that human beings will be innovative and creative only when a material system of incentives and rewards is in place. The reason why this is the case is because in the fashion industry video there was a point made in the introduction about how Miucchi Parada, head designer of Prada, was able to take a jacket off of a rack and turn it inside out to analyze it in order to copy its style and feel in her newest collection. There’s no incentive to be creative in this example. Miucchi simply is not breaking any laws because of the low copyright protection in the fashion industry. There’s more trademark protection for the traditional brand like Gucci and Prada to brand their merchandise, however, no copyright law for lifting new designs from other competitors. The courts ruled that clothing is too utilitarian to the people in order for one brand or a group of brands to monopolize this and gouge the consumers for more money.

    In this regard, apparel in the fashion industry is never about being creative. There’s no monetary incentive to be different and make a unique design to appeal to large swathes of consumers. Instead, it’s better just to copy what’s the latest trend in season and ride the coattails of chasing whatever trend is in right now. IP rights only matter to these companies in terms of protecting their brand’s value not their products. A brand like Prada relies on its value and reputation to allow itself to only be consumed by the wealthiest consumers. If the brand’s value wasn’t trademarked then I highly doubt the company would be as successful today.

    2. Lee compares computer software like Microsoft and Linux to McDonald’s and Chinese fast food restaurants in order to elaborate on the fact that Microsoft represents a closed-source type of software that is unable to be replicated properly due to IP rights. Meanwhile, Linux is an open-source software which can easily be copied, modified and changed from person to person. Chinese food represents this open source type of low IP software as it varies from region to region.

    For instance, General Tso’s chicken is different in Chinese restaurants in America compared to the original dish made in China due to multiple modifications based on region. The same principle is true for Chinese food in France, Italy, Japan etc. This is similar to Linux which is a type of transferable modifiable form of open source software. In contrast to this, American restaurants like McDonalds represent more closed source Microsoft as they took 10 years to develop their recipe for chicken McNuggets in effectively being able to remove all the chucked from the bone. Their recipe was so distinct and unique (as well as secretive from the public) that it was very hard to perfectly imitate by rival fast-food brands like Wendys and Burger King. For Microsoft, they hold high IP rights with strong copyrights and trademarks in their computer software brand/design.

    3. Marcia Angel lays out a trenchant critique of the pharmaceutical industry and its use/misuse of intellectual property rights. Her main conclusions and other points are that the costs of medicines in America are extremely high as a result of high prices as a result of strong IP laws for patents of drug companies. The drug companies say that they have to spend most of their money on research and development to create their drugs, which is why the prices are is high. They are also a worldwide business that works in outsourcing labor and producing pharmaceuticals and selling them.

    According to the Fortune 5000, in 2008, the top 10 drug companies had total sales of $269,000,000,000 yet had R&D of $41,000,0000,000. The pharmaceutical industry always scores high in gaining wealth yet, has a lot of risk in predicting the success of their drugs. These companies mainly want to produce drugs that sell high and recoup their high costs of investment. However, their R&D is barely a fraction of their total sales in 2008. So where is a majority of that money? The answer is in strong marketing and administration costs of $83,000,0000,0000 in the U.S. for the drug companies promote their drugs for both chronic and curable diseases. So it’s clear to me that all these drug companies are lying about high R&D costs. They’d rather market a products more in order to make a profit.

    Additionally, another statistic that shows this false narrative of the pharmaceutical companies is that from 2000 to 2007, in terms of New Drug Approvals, there were 667 new drug approvals and only 75 were new medicine improvements. In explaining this statistic, there’s no existing comparisons for drugs that treat the same conditions, rather for approval, all these companies need to do is compare the effectiveness of their drug with a placebo. These are skewed standards for success as these drugs are simply just designed to be approved if they are better than a control group of nothing. It means that no-one really knows the true effectiveness of these drugs in treating different medical conditions because they aren’t compared to multiple different effective standards. In the end, this makes the drug industry only concerned with protecting the IP of their drugs to push out highly advertised ones that re simply better than nothing at exorbitant prices to get more of a profit at the consumer’s expense. IP simply plays a role because all drug companies want to do is take their slightly experimental drug for a specific condition and copyright it with a long-term patent so that they can guarantee continued financial success on it until they need to extend it to prematurely protect their strong positive cash-flows from their drug.

    Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s