0:20 the most unexpected beginning I had ever seen in a Ted Talk, led to overkilling my expectations with how strong of a message was delivered at the end👏20:00 wow.
This is mixing two things together - one thing is a mechanism that protects someone's work from being stolen thus providing means to get paid for their work fairly, the other is that the price for someone's IP is sometimes excesively high. There's nothing wrong with paying for someone's work if I want it. Everything that has been created has been created with some costs - direct or indirect (someone's time, energy, other resources) - putting everything for free doesn't solve the world's problem, it would only cause all the world's resources to be plundered. Maybe there should be better control over pricing for goods/services that are essential for life/health. But having things for free is an utopia - it's fine when one or two people from the UK go to Amazonia to heal themselves, but imagine if all sick people around the world went to Amazonia to get "free medicine". That's completelly unsustainable.
I still got 5 min so I hope it gets brought up but I can't believe he's not bringing up the fact that intellectual property actually stagnates progress in the medical field because once you start making money off of a drug you won't want to cure that disease because it won't make money
his lecture is very interesting and covers many industries and he makes a lot of valid points. Although, a lot of conclusions are simply common sense while some lack further elaboration. The patent medicine prices are obnoxiously high and taking away patents would probably bring more competition into r&d (if that’s the right way to go and not through better price regulations and competition policies, since patent ensures investment in the r&d in the first place)... But would revoking patents compel the Pharma industry to run down to Africa/SE Asia to cure tbc or malaria? You'd still have very rich westerners who want to cure their boldness, age and impotence and can pay good money for it... What i find most unusual about this entire lecture is that he mentions that he and his friend were cured from an autoimmune disease and a MS (!) from "some" opensource plants from "some shamans" in the "Amazon", and he fails to provide any references that other people with the same or similar conditions might use to seek assistance? This information seems to me too important to be mentioned in a lecture in a btw sort of manner... Heck, it is the most important piece of information he gave! Did anyone find a reference to this, anywhere?
Re: pharma point, “top ten pharma companies have earned $700b in profit over last ten years”. There’s a few issues here: survivorship bias (plenty of startup pharma companies make no money), second the biggest pharma companies acquire portfolios of smaller companies with successful or promising technologies to commercialize them. The system has plenty of risk, the top pharma companies act more like venture firms buying portfolios of companies that have taken successful bets
I mostly agree with the talk, except the part with streaming services. They're riddled with DRM, and can be censored by the IP owner or the streaming service with you having 0 control over it. And the horrible cut is horrible no matter what. If you want to distribute media, just buy the copy send your friends the files, use it in your podcast etc.
0:20 the most unexpected beginning I had ever seen in a Ted Talk, led to overkilling my expectations with how strong of a message was delivered at the end👏20:00 wow.
He got me when he said "Companies are looking for market share not developing society"
do you know what a company is?
I haven't thought about intellectual property in this perspective before so it was very interesting to be presented with Liam's case surrounding this!
Thanks for sharing this inspiring talk! This one of many way to grow as a society and a vital contribution to life!
This is mixing two things together - one thing is a mechanism that protects someone's work from being stolen thus providing means to get paid for their work fairly, the other is that the price for someone's IP is sometimes excesively high. There's nothing wrong with paying for someone's work if I want it. Everything that has been created has been created with some costs - direct or indirect (someone's time, energy, other resources) - putting everything for free doesn't solve the world's problem, it would only cause all the world's resources to be plundered. Maybe there should be better control over pricing for goods/services that are essential for life/health. But having things for free is an utopia - it's fine when one or two people from the UK go to Amazonia to heal themselves, but imagine if all sick people around the world went to Amazonia to get "free medicine". That's completelly unsustainable.
I still got 5 min so I hope it gets brought up but I can't believe he's not bringing up the fact that intellectual property actually stagnates progress in the medical field because once you start making money off of a drug you won't want to cure that disease because it won't make money
his lecture is very interesting and covers many industries and he makes a lot of valid points. Although, a lot of conclusions are simply common sense while some lack further elaboration. The patent medicine prices are obnoxiously high and taking away patents would probably bring more competition into r&d (if that’s the right way to go and not through better price regulations and competition policies, since patent ensures investment in the r&d in the first place)... But would revoking patents compel the Pharma industry to run down to Africa/SE Asia to cure tbc or malaria? You'd still have very rich westerners who want to cure their boldness, age and impotence and can pay good money for it... What i find most unusual about this entire lecture is that he mentions that he and his friend were cured from an autoimmune disease and a MS (!) from "some" opensource plants from "some shamans" in the "Amazon", and he fails to provide any references that other people with the same or similar conditions might use to seek assistance? This information seems to me too important to be mentioned in a lecture in a btw sort of manner... Heck, it is the most important piece of information he gave! Did anyone find a reference to this, anywhere?
Re: pharma point, “top ten pharma companies have earned $700b in profit over last ten years”. There’s a few issues here: survivorship bias (plenty of startup pharma companies make no money), second the biggest pharma companies acquire portfolios of smaller companies with successful or promising technologies to commercialize them. The system has plenty of risk, the top pharma companies act more like venture firms buying portfolios of companies that have taken successful bets
17:36 decrease in prices of products being dictated by IP
Does accompany means a CEO to be listed on the stock exchange
I mostly agree with the talk, except the part with streaming services.
They're riddled with DRM, and can be censored by the IP owner or the streaming service with you having 0 control over it. And the horrible cut is horrible no matter what.
If you want to distribute media, just buy the copy send your friends the files, use it in your podcast etc.
Nice
Where is harza
Wasn't a bad lecture until he started talking about magical plant cures from shaman...
The constant saliva slurp makes this unwatchable