Search content
Sort by
Showing 20 of 23 results by gibson042
Mr. Chodpaba, I gotta say, I continue to love your work.
If I could very humbly give you some feedback on the appearance of the chart: I frequently get thrown off by the THICK green bars representing yesterday's price.
If I could very humbly give you some feedback on the appearance of the chart: I frequently get thrown off by the THICK green bars representing yesterday's price.
Same here, on both counts. What would you think of something like this?
http://i.imgur.com/3H5Lf.png
My entry to this thread, a link demonstrating how patents harm rather than help pharmaceutical development, fell on the deaf ears of its principal satanic advocate but was of some utility to other participants.
The conversation has since shifted to copyright, and our rogue now claims that a publication monopoly is necessary for creative works. This opinion is also non-factual, andsmarter men then ey people have thought about and documented an answer to the question of how original content can be rewarded in a world without copyright.
Trademark, too, has been addressed. Others have asserted this here already, but to reiterate (emphasis mine):
Stephan Kinsella, the author of that last quote, has also written and made publicly available a detailed but still short (under 60 pages) explanation of how Intellectual Property is an inconsistent system and violates tangible property rights: Against Intellectual Property. I have no expectations regarding Hawker, but believe it will be valuable here nonetheless.
Edit: retracted an unnecessary snipe.
The conversation has since shifted to copyright, and our rogue now claims that a publication monopoly is necessary for creative works. This opinion is also non-factual, and
We introduce the Street Performer Protocol, an electronic-commerce mechanism to facilitate the private fi nancing of public works.
Trademark, too, has been addressed. Others have asserted this here already, but to reiterate (emphasis mine):
Quote from: http://blog.mises.org/7409/trademark-and-fraud/
It seems to me that the primary justification for trademark rights is based on the notion of fraudthat the infringer is defrauding his customers by misrepresenting his identity and the source of the goods being sold (see pp. 43-44 of my Against Intellectual Property, pp. 59-63 of Reply to Van Dun: Non-Aggression and Title Transfer, p. 34 of A Theory of Contracts: Binding Promises, Title Transfer, and Inalienability). This would give a cause of action to customers, however, not to the holder of the mark, who is not defrauded. Now just as some a class representative is given the right to sue on behalf of the whole class in a class action lawsuit for efficiency/incentive reasons, the more law-and-economics minded types might say that the right to sue for such consumer fraud ought to be transferred from the diffuse group of defrauded customers, to the trademark holder himself. That is, the trademark user can sue infringers, but his right to do this is based on the right of customers fraud cause of action.
Stephan Kinsella, the author of that last quote, has also written and made publicly available a detailed but still short (under 60 pages) explanation of how Intellectual Property is an inconsistent system and violates tangible property rights: Against Intellectual Property. I have no expectations regarding Hawker, but believe it will be valuable here nonetheless.
Edit: retracted an unnecessary snipe.
A society that collects stamps is completely different in scope from an entire society such as the English, or the Turks or Israelis. You can choose not to collect stamps. You can't choose the nation/state/society you are born into.
I take it from this special pleading that you are comfortable with members of a society whose rules I disagree with declaring me to be a member and enforcing them upon me against my will. I take personal offense, and do not plan to continue this conversation.
Quote
Ought possessions be acquired by anything other than homesteading or voluntary transfer?
Yes of course. I've had what we call "rescue dogs" which have been confiscated from their owners, neutered and offered to people who want to offer them a better home. My right to live in a society that abhors cruelty trumps the original owners right to beat and starve his dog.
Don't you agree?
Yes of course. I've had what we call "rescue dogs" which have been confiscated from their owners, neutered and offered to people who want to offer them a better home. My right to live in a society that abhors cruelty trumps the original owners right to beat and starve his dog.
Don't you agree?
No. Shame, censure, and ostracism can reduce cruelty. Advocating "might makes right" institutionalizes it.
You are comparing violence that is against the rules of society with violence by society. Ultimately we control society and the way to change it is to change people's minds. In our societies, the rules we choose are based on commonly accepted ideas of what is good. For example, you can talk about homesteading forever, but if you are being cruel to the animals that you own, society will take them off you, fine you a lot of money and forbid you from owning more animals.
Question: how do you feel about members of a society whose rules I disagree with declaring me to be a member against my will? Because you're arguably about to do that to me.
Quote
All rights are social constructs and as such will be messy. We want films so we allow movie makers copyright. We want consumer goods so we allow brand owners have trademarks. We want people to make the most of resources so we allow security of tenure. We don't want cruelty so we confiscate dogs that are being tortured. But we don't care as much if its a dog in a laboratory and we don't care at all if its a rat. Is this logically consistent? Yes - rights are what society uses to achieve its goals and to see them as ends in themselves is to confuse the tool with the task.
I have purposefully avoided the word "rights" in favor of asking how things ought to be, and honestly I don't feel like you've satisfactorily answered. And if you intend all those "we"s to include me, I resent the imposition. I am and have been a member of many societiesrelating variously to academics, professions, hobbies, and interestsand none of them presumed to include me as a member before receiving my explicit request to join, or to enforce their rules upon non-members. I do not allow anyone copyright or tenure, I am not willing to forcefully seize another person's animals, and I refuse to sidestep guilt by allowing others to do so in my name.
Please, put aside for the moment your understanding of "rights" and answer me both the above question and this one:
Ought possessions be acquired by anything other than homesteading or voluntary transfer?
Sure it's annoying, but how else do you expect to make someone earn *somewhat* of a reputation before communicating with the community at large? Think of it as a IQ test to get into something like mensa. It keeps most of the idiots out.
It's possible, but not nearly as annoying, to give everyone the benefit of doubt before applying restrictions.
The answer is the Turks and Israelis. Any other answer ignores reality. Any philosophy that says otherwise is better suited to castles in the sky than the world we live in. I personally find the reality very ugly and have had heated discussions with Turks on the value of restitution and reconciliation. I've been about the lake Van and Rize areas; its pretty clear who owns what and any effort to make the world a better place must start with the reality of where we are now.
In ethical terms we are evolving. Those who owned slaves were not evil brutes any more than woman who has an abortion is an evil brute. Today we see slavery as wrong and abortion as tolerable. If we were having this conversation 1000 years ago, the situation would be exactly reversed. Thats precisely why I object to people saying intellectual property is illegitimate. It implies there is some kind of eternal ethical standard and that they are on the right side of it and that those who happen to like the benefits on intellectual property are moral pygmies. When if fact, they simply find it ugly and would do better to communicate a better alternative.
In ethical terms we are evolving. Those who owned slaves were not evil brutes any more than woman who has an abortion is an evil brute. Today we see slavery as wrong and abortion as tolerable. If we were having this conversation 1000 years ago, the situation would be exactly reversed. Thats precisely why I object to people saying intellectual property is illegitimate. It implies there is some kind of eternal ethical standard and that they are on the right side of it and that those who happen to like the benefits on intellectual property are moral pygmies. When if fact, they simply find it ugly and would do better to communicate a better alternative.
I think I comprehend you a little better now, but you don't seem to understand the is-ought problem or the consequences of your position. If property begins and ends with simply "that under one's control", then how can disputes be resolved? "The guy down the street may say that car is his, but my guns make me the strongest power in the realm. Hand over the keys!"
I'm not saying that those who owned slaves were evil, just that I'm not willing to advocate a system in which people can become slaves at the whim of the powerful.
And if you start with the principle that possessions ought to be acquired only by homesteading or voluntary transfer, then you must logically reject the concept of Intellectual Property. Either you accept the starting principle, or you accept a different principle, or you are truly neutral on the means through which possessions ought to be acquired (i.e., trade/theft = po-tay-to/po-tah-to). Which is it?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Property_rights#Thomas_Hobbes_.2817th_century.29
"Hobbes' reflection began with the idea of "giving to every man his own," a phrase he drew from the writings of Cicero. But he wondered: How can anybody call anything his own? He concluded: My own can only truly be mine if there is one unambiguously strongest power in the realm, and that power treats it as mine, protecting its status as such."
"Hobbes' reflection began with the idea of "giving to every man his own," a phrase he drew from the writings of Cicero. But he wondered: How can anybody call anything his own? He concluded: My own can only truly be mine if there is one unambiguously strongest power in the realm, and that power treats it as mine, protecting its status as such."
So, the forwarded definition of property is "that which the unambiguously strongest power in the realm treats as property"? Void for circularity. Also void for lack of context (what defines "unambiguously"? "strongest"? "the realm"?). Even if those issues get resolved, you still have to deal with the following exhaustive methods by which material could be granted or lose the label of "one's property":
- change in opinion of the unambiguously strongest power in the realm
- replacement of the unambiguously strongest power in the realm
- transition away from a valid assignment of unambiguously strongest power in the realm (death of a monarch, competing factions, invasion, collapse of a state, etc.)
- this one is especially bad, because it results in the immediate revocation of all property in "the realm"!
Since the result is essentially a codification of "might makes right", I suppose you are compelled to acknowledge that slaves were property in the the States ultimately joining into the Confederate States of America until 1860(ish; depending on definition of the "unambiguously strongest power in the realm"), and property in Maryland and Missouri until 1864 and 1865, respectively. And that people can again become permissible as property at the whim of any "unambiguously strongest power in the realm". Is this really the position you want to take?
Quote
What is the point of a philosophy that is not based on facts?
Already covered by FredericBastiat and namesake Frederic Bastiat.
Also, you still need to address your own question:
You haven't answered. Who is the legitimate owner -Turks and Israelis or the descendents of the dispossessed Armenians, Arabs and Greeks?
With respect, you are avoiding answering the question. I didn't ask about your possessions. I asked about the nature of ownership. Where do you believe that property rights come from somewhere other than society? If property rights don't come from society, then who owns the farms in Eastern Turkey, Israel and Northern Cyprus that were taken by force when once society destroyed another?
The factual nature of ownership is that owners are those who successfully defend a claim. An philosophical definition of ownership requires that it only be granted with homesteading or voluntary transfer, and only revoked with abandonment or voluntary transfer. The two perspectives disagree.
But, to quote you to yourself:
You haven't answered. Who is the legitimate owner -Turks and Israelis or the descendents of the dispossessed Armenians, Arabs and Greeks?
Like I said, these are the problems of large-scale aggression. You seem to be defending the concept by stating that "society" are justified in imposing their will upon peaceful people.
My possessions were not given to me by "society", they were given to me by individuals, some of whom offered them as gifts, some of whom I traded with directly, and some of whom I traded with as representatives of voluntarily-joined organizations. Possessions have been also taken from me, some by individuals acting alone and some by individuals representing organizations claiming the power to unilaterally demand things of me, their implicit serf.
The reality is that force (or more specifically, the threat thereof) is frequently used to distort the chain of ownership that would otherwise exist. Intellectual property is the description given to one such distortion, by which force is threatened often and used occasionally against people who would use their own resources to implement ideas copied or derived from others. It is both a bad idea and a rejection of the principle that possessions ought only be acquired by homesteading or voluntary transfer.
My possessions were not given to me by "society", they were given to me by individuals, some of whom offered them as gifts, some of whom I traded with directly, and some of whom I traded with as representatives of voluntarily-joined organizations. Possessions have been also taken from me, some by individuals acting alone and some by individuals representing organizations claiming the power to unilaterally demand things of me, their implicit serf.
The reality is that force (or more specifically, the threat thereof) is frequently used to distort the chain of ownership that would otherwise exist. Intellectual property is the description given to one such distortion, by which force is threatened often and used occasionally against people who would use their own resources to implement ideas copied or derived from others. It is both a bad idea and a rejection of the principle that possessions ought only be acquired by homesteading or voluntary transfer.
Running for your life is a strange definition of "property abandoned." In the Armenians case, the ones that didn't run fast enough were slaughtered. But thats history now.
In simple terms, do you believe the Turks and Israelis to be the legitimate owners today?
In simple terms, do you believe the Turks and Israelis to be the legitimate owners today?
Running for your life and then doing nothing about it for 37 years is a strange definition of "property held".
And I'm still not exactly sure what you mean by adjectives like "real" and "legitimate". A principled arbitrator would need to determine on a case-by-case basis who has the best claim to any given property given the facts presented. If the facts lead to a conclusion that the original owner has in fact abandoned the property, then it was available for homesteading.
It would also be expedient for an arbitrator to satisfy all parties to the greatest possible extent. In the hypothetical case I've already discussed, it might be accomplished by having the homesteader compensate the abandoner for profiting from eir loss. The amount of compensation would depend on, among other things, how long ago the events took place and how active the abandoner has been in reacquiring possession.
Edit: It would also hugely depend upon whether the homesteader was involved in chasing out the abandoner. In my hypothetical, I've been assuming that it was someone who came in after the fact.
Also, I'd like to hear your answer to the question. In simple terms, do you believe the Turks and Israelis to be the legitimate owners today?
gibson042 my question was 'which owners are the "real" owners?' The present day Turks and Israelis or the descendents of the dispossessed Armenians, Arabs and Greeks?
As I already stated, you were correct in asserting that the factual owners are those who successfully defend a claim.
If by "real" owners you mean who ought to be able to do so, that's something for the involved parties to work out theirselves through peaceful dispute resolution. If I were an arbitrator dealing with such a dispute right now (i.e., decades after the fact), I would be inclined to declare the property abandoned in 1974, but might insist that the aggrieved is owed some compensation for the circumstances by which the new owner took possession. In 1976, I'd probably have sided with the original owner.
It's messy, and these are the kinds of problems caused by large-scale aggression.
Thats the way life works. If you want to restrict yourself to physical property, consider visiting these places; Eastern Turkey, Israel and Northern Cyprus. In each you have prosperous successful people who own their own land. They have title papers and by any definition of ownership, this is theirs. But across the borders, there are other people who have title deeds to the same property and in the cases of the Greek Cypriots, often still have the keys of the doors of the houses they left behind as they fled for their lives in 1974.
My question to you is this; which owners are the "real" owners. My personal view is that ownership is something that comes from the society and if you can't enforce your claim, then you don't actually own anything. Do you have some less "naked and ugly" view?
My question to you is this; which owners are the "real" owners. My personal view is that ownership is something that comes from the society and if you can't enforce your claim, then you don't actually own anything. Do you have some less "naked and ugly" view?
The part in bold is factually correct, but the preceding clause is not; it is possible for those with enough might to enforce "ownership" claims against the wishes of most members of society (e.g., copyright extension, bank bailouts, deepwater drilling, asset forfeiture, eminent domain, and a host of tragedies of the commons).
However:
I want everyone to witness the rhetorical retreat of Hawker, who began by claiming that force ought to be initiated against those who discredit the concept of intellectual property, and now merely notes that force is used in an essentially arbitrary fashion by people who purport to act on behalf of "society".
There are lots of nasty things that people do. If your defense of a position is that you can find people willing and able to employ violence upon those who don't share it, then I suppose chattel slavery only became wrong after the Enlightenment... and let us hope that "society" never again condone with their collective might outright ownership of peoplerather, let us push "society" into further abandoning even the watered-down serfdom that subjugates everyone under a monopoly government.
Which brings me to a direct answer of your request. I advocate that people not employ force against those who implement the ideas of others with their own materials, though they may publicly or privately shame, censure, or ostracize the "pirates" if so inclined. It is a specialization of the more general principle that people ought always repair the damage caused when they escalate the level of force. The more this ideal is adhered to, the less ugly the world will be.
In short, if you don't like the concept of intellectual property, come up with something that will produce more goods for us as a society. Arguing that the intellectual property rights that society gave you conflict with the property rights that society gave you is not convincing. You may as well argue that property is theft and all should be abolished.
There it is, naked and ugly. You have the right to do only what the massesor rather, the group of people claiming to represent "society"will not forcefully prevent you from doing. No reason. No consistency. No principle. Just the might of a few amoral people with costumes and the apathy or fear of everyone else.
The original maker of Viagra has not being ripped off. - of course they have. Money that was meant for the drug they made has gone to someone else. That is a rip off.
The fraudulent sale in no way affects the assets, inventory, or any other property of Pfizer. It's like you're claiming that they own the potential sale, in which case they might as well sue anyone who intends to buy Viagra but changes eir mind before actually making the purchase.
I'm not joking. Even the person you linked to assumed that trademarks ( the ability to sell under their own name) were needed. Imagine a world where anyone can make a drug and call it Viagra - even if they don't copy the real Viagra, the original maker is being ripped off as the sales of that "Viagra" are actually sales that are intended for their "Viagra."
That's not the original maker being ripped off, that's the buyers being ripped off because they aren't getting the "real Viagra" that they thought they were. And that's true even without monopoly trademarksit's called fraud.
So you see, trademarks and patents are needed 
But its a free market. If anyone wants to try to develop a drug without bothering to have it patented and sell it without bothering to have a trademark, let me know how they do.
But its a free market. If anyone wants to try to develop a drug without bothering to have it patented and sell it without bothering to have a trademark, let me know how they do."
" is not sufficient for promoting an opinion to a fact. And the claim that there is a free market in drug development, when people who patent and submit to the FDA can use force against those who ignore the patents and/or the agency, is just plain false. The mafia claim that anyone is free to do business without paying protection money, too... let me know how they do.You can't simply assert that. There is nothing to stop companies making drugs and foregoing patents right now. Feel free to point me to them - otherwise lets limit ourselves to the real world.
I can't tell whether or not you're joking. In the real world, people doing business as government threaten everyone who doesn't respect their monopoly constructs (patents and regulations).
You have put forward nothing more than an opinion that pharmaceutical development requires patents, and it is an opinion that at least one person with professional experience in the field explicitly rebuts.
The FDA regulations are there for a reason. Bad drugs kill people. If your idea is to allow unregulated drug sales is implemented, some people will die for no good reason.
Are you aware of just how often that happens right now, with FDA regulations?
The recalls on the list are generally Class I., which means there is a reasonable probability that the use of or exposure to a violative product will cause serious adverse health consequences or death.
We've actually reached the point where prescription drugs kill more people than prohibited ones!
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=prescription-drug-deaths&print=true
http://www.google.com/search?q=more+deaths+prescription+illegal
Regardless, it is at the very least questionable that pharmaceutical development requires patents, so please stop using that claim to defend the concept.
A new drug costs several hundred million dollars to develop. If you remove IP protections, that money will not be invested. So society loses medical research and gains what? Nothing.
You keep expressing this opinion as if it were incontrovertible fact. It might interest you or others reading that at least one person with personal experience in pharmaceutical research disputes it.
http://www.homelandstupidity.us/2009/03/25/mary-ruwart-deadly-secrets-behind-soaring-pharmaceutical-prices/
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0Yvt8CsujzY
http://www.youtube.com/v/0Yvt8CsujzY
Starting a lottery with a lottery based currency.... Interesting...
On an unrelated note... might I interest anyone in my new alternative blockchain, Ponzicoin?
Wellhung: Hello, Sweetheart . What do you look like?
Sweetheart: I am wearing a red silk blouse, a miniskirt and high heels. I work out every day, I'm toned and perfect. My measurements are 36-24-36. What do you look like?
Wellhung: I'm 6'3" and about 280 pounds.I wear glasses and I have on a pair of blue sweat pants I just bought from Walmart.I'm also wearing a T-shirt with a few spots of barbecue sauce on it from dinner...it smells funny.
Sweetheart: I want you.Would you like to screw me?
Wellhung: OK
Sweetheart: We're in my bedroom.There's soft music playing on the stereo and candles on my dresser and night table.I'm looking up into your eyes, smiling. My hand works its way down to your crotch and begins to fondle your huge, swelling bulge.
Wellhung: I'm gulping, I'm beginning to sweat.
Sweetheart: I'm pulling up your shirt and kissing your chest.
Wellhung: Now I'm unbuttoning your blouse.My hands are trembling.
Sweetheart: I'm moaning softly.
Wellhung: I'm taking hold of your blouse and sliding it off slowly.
Sweetheart: I'm throwing my head back in pleasure.The cool silk slides off my warm skin.I'm rubbing your bulge faster, pulling and rubbing.
Wellhung: My hand suddenly jerks spastically and accidentally rips a hole in your blouse.I'm sorry.
Sweetheart: That's OK, it wasn't really too expensive.
Wellhung: I'll pay for it.
Sweetheart: Don't worry about it.I'm wearing a lacy black bra.My soft breasts are rising and falling, as I breath harder and harder.
Wellhung: I'm fumbling with the clasp on your bra.I think it's stuck. Do you have any scissors?
Sweetheart: I take your hand and kiss it softly.I'm reaching back undoing the clasp. The bra slides off my body. The air caresses my breasts. My nipples are erect for you.
Wellhung: How did you do that? I'm picking up the bra and inspecting the clasp.
Sweetheart: I'm arching my back. Oh baby. I just want to feel your tongue all over me.
Wellhung: I'm dropping the bra. Now I'm licking your, you know, breasts. They're neat!
Sweetheart: I'm running my fingers through your hair. Now I'm nibbling your ear.
Wellhung: I suddenly sneeze. Your breasts are covered with spit and phlegm.
Sweetheart: What?
Wellhung: I'm so sorry. Really.
Sweetheart: I'm wiping your phlegm off my breasts with the remains of my blouse.
Wellhung: I'm taking the sopping wet blouse from you. I drop it with a plop.
Sweetheart: OK. I'm pulling your sweat pants down and rubbing your hard tool.
Wellhung: I'm screaming like a woman. Your hands are cold! Yeeee!
Sweetheart: I'm pulling up my miniskirt. Take off my panties.
Wellhung: I'm pulling off your panties. My tongue is going all over, in and out nibbling on you...umm... wait a minute.
Sweetheart: What's the matter?
Wellhung: I've got a pubic hair caught in my throat. I'm choking.
Sweetheart: Are you OK?
Wellhung: I'm having a coughing fit. I'm turning all red.
Sweetheart: Can I help?
Wellhung: I'm running to the kitchen, choking wildly. I'm fumbling through the cabinets, looking for a cup. Where do you keep your cups?
Sweetheart: In the cabinet to the right of the sink.
Wellhung: I'm drinking a cup of water. There, that's better.
Sweetheart: Come back to me, lover.
Wellhung: I'm washing the cup now.
Sweetheart: I'm on the bed arching for you.
Wellhung: I'm drying the cup. Now I'm putting it back in the cabinet. And now I'm walking back to the bedroom. Wait, it's dark, I'm lost. Where's the bedroom?
Sweetheart: Last door on the left at the end of the hall.
Wellhung: I found it.
Sweetheart: I'm tuggin' off your pants. I'm moaning. I want you so badly.
Wellhung: Me too.
Sweetheart: Your pants are off. I kiss you passionately-our naked bodies pressing each other.
Wellhung: Your face is pushing my glasses into my face. It hurts.
Sweetheart: Why don't you take off your glasses?
Wellhung: OK, but I can't see very well without them. I place the glasses on the night table.
Sweetheart: I'm bending over the bed. Give it to me, baby!
Wellhung: I have to pee. I'm fumbling my way blindly across the room and toward the bathroom.
Sweetheart: Hurry back, lover.
Wellhung: I find the bathroom and it's dark. I'm feeling around for the toilet. I lift the lid.
Sweetheart: I'm waiting eagerly for your return.
Wellhung: I'm done going. I'm feeling around for the flush handle, but I can't find it. Uh-oh!
Sweetheart: What's the matter now?
Wellhung: I've realized that I've peed into your laundry hamper. Sorry again. I'm walking back to the bedroom now, blindly feeling my way.
Sweetheart: Mmm, yes. Come on.
Wellhung: OK, now I'm going to put my...you know ...thing...in your...you know...woman's thing.
Sweetheart: Yes! Do it, baby! Do it!
Wellhung: I'm touching your smooth butt. It feels so nice. I kiss your neck. Umm, I'm having a little trouble here.
Sweetheart: I'm moving my ass back and forth, moaning. I can't stand it another second! Slide in! Screw me now!
Wellhung: I'm flaccid.
Sweetheart: What?
Wellhung: I'm limp. I can't sustain an erection.
Sweetheart: I'm standing up and turning around; an incredulous look on my face.
Wellhung: I'm shrugging with a sad look on my face, my weiner all floppy. I'm going to get my glasses and see what's wrong.
Sweetheart: No, never mind. I'm getting dressed. I'm putting on my underwear. Now I'm putting on my wet nasty blouse.
Wellhung: No wait! Now I'm squinting, trying to find the night table. I'm feeling along the dresser, knocking over cans of hair spray, picture frames and your candles.
Sweetheart: I'm buttoning my blouse. Now I'm putting on my shoes.
Wellhung: I've found my glasses. I'm putting them on. My God! One of our candles fell on the curtain. The curtain is on fire! I'm pointing at it, a shocked look on my face.
Sweetheart: Go to hell. I'm logging off, you loser!
Wellhung: Now the carpet is on fire! Oh noooo!
1HhxKthxXPum7uSfT1zn8zDr6JScTZ338L