Also, I find it funny that you mention Microsoft.
Did they try to crush Netscape?
Yes.
Did it do them any good?
No.
Their Internet Explorer is still shit and I have not used it in years.
[quote]orion wrote:
[quote]ironcross wrote:
[quote]orion wrote:
[quote]ironcross wrote:
I’m going to mention this again, because it’s especially relevant in the information age:
If a monopoly is ahead because they cut corners in terms of employee treatment and stole the competition’s ideas before they made it to market, would that concern you?
[/quote]
Not really, because if you treat your employees like shit you will be left with people who have no other options and those are not the people who will keep you on top.
I would be interested to hear how you think you can steal something that has not made it to the market.
Sounds like a challenge to do that.
[/quote]
It happens all the time and is the reason for patent laws. If someone comes up with an idea and doesn’t patent it first, or their idea is found out before it’s patented, they will not make money off of that idea. If they can’t make money off of their idea, they have no reason to try to come up with it in the first place. A monopoly who steals one of these ideas will be able to make it at a much cheaper price than the original person with the idea would have been able to. Therefore, the only person who will suffer in that situation is the person who thought up a great idea that benefited everyone except for themself.
Microsoft in particular has been sued countless times for taking other’s ideas, and I’m not talking about them buying the ideas and then getting sued for making so much money.[/quote]
First, if your patent is pending they can go fuck themselves.
Second, patents run out.
Third, patents are not exactly a “free market” idea.
Fourth, if you cannot get their market share this way, you can do it another way.
There are lots of hungry young entrepreneurs out there and the want very last one of your customers.
Hey, treat you employees like shit, treat your customers like shit, behave like a total asshole and see where it gets you. [/quote]
Why would you try to invent something new if there was no way for it to benefit you? Patents are essential to the promotion of new ideas. I personally know people who have made billions off of their ideas. One of them is a physicist who spent 2 years holed up in his own lab inventing a way to put CO2 directly into alcohol. He succeeded, got the patent for it, and has literally made billions. Would he have been motivated to spend 2 years acting on his idea if he wasn’t able to make a profit off of it? No, he probably would have been teaching.
[quote]orion wrote:
Also, I find it funny that you mention Microsoft.
Did they try to crush Netscape?
Yes.
Did it do them any good?
No.
Their Internet Explorer is still shit and I have not used it in years. [/quote]
Oh they tried and failed and tried and succeeded numerous times at stealing ideas. They’ve also been caught in the process of stealing ideas numerous times (I remember reading a couple of cases brought to them by Apple).
[quote]ironcross wrote:
[quote]orion wrote:
[quote]ironcross wrote:
[quote]orion wrote:
[quote]ironcross wrote:
I’m going to mention this again, because it’s especially relevant in the information age:
If a monopoly is ahead because they cut corners in terms of employee treatment and stole the competition’s ideas before they made it to market, would that concern you?
[/quote]
Not really, because if you treat your employees like shit you will be left with people who have no other options and those are not the people who will keep you on top.
I would be interested to hear how you think you can steal something that has not made it to the market.
Sounds like a challenge to do that.
[/quote]
It happens all the time and is the reason for patent laws. If someone comes up with an idea and doesn’t patent it first, or their idea is found out before it’s patented, they will not make money off of that idea. If they can’t make money off of their idea, they have no reason to try to come up with it in the first place. A monopoly who steals one of these ideas will be able to make it at a much cheaper price than the original person with the idea would have been able to. Therefore, the only person who will suffer in that situation is the person who thought up a great idea that benefited everyone except for themself.
Microsoft in particular has been sued countless times for taking other’s ideas, and I’m not talking about them buying the ideas and then getting sued for making so much money.[/quote]
First, if your patent is pending they can go fuck themselves.
Second, patents run out.
Third, patents are not exactly a “free market” idea.
Fourth, if you cannot get their market share this way, you can do it another way.
There are lots of hungry young entrepreneurs out there and the want very last one of your customers.
Hey, treat you employees like shit, treat your customers like shit, behave like a total asshole and see where it gets you. [/quote]
Why would you try to invent something new if there was no way for it to benefit you? Patents are essential to the promotion of new ideas. I personally know people who have made billions off of their ideas. One of them is a physicist who spent 2 years holed up in his own lab inventing a way to put CO2 directly into alcohol. He succeeded, got the patent for it, and has literally made billions. Would he have been motivated to spend 2 years acting on his idea if he wasn’t able to make a profit off of it? No, he probably would have been teaching.[/quote]
I am not saying that there is no point that can be made for patents, I am saying that they are not exactly a free market idea.
[quote]ironcross wrote:
[quote]orion wrote:
Also, I find it funny that you mention Microsoft.
Did they try to crush Netscape?
Yes.
Did it do them any good?
No.
Their Internet Explorer is still shit and I have not used it in years. [/quote]
Oh they tried and failed and tried and succeeded numerous times at stealing ideas. They’ve also been caught in the process of stealing ideas numerous times (I remember reading a couple of cases brought to them by Apple).
[/quote]
Yeah well, Apple sues everyone.
And, since that kind of pissed of a lot of people, they get sued right back.
Apple sued Samsung because they claimed their tablet PC was just a copy of the IPad, Samsung argues that this is horseshit because the rather vague “patent” (its nor quite a patent) was already used in the movie “2001”.
Shenanigans.
[quote]orion wrote:
[quote]ironcross wrote:
[quote]orion wrote:
[quote]ironcross wrote:
[quote]orion wrote:
[quote]ironcross wrote:
I’m going to mention this again, because it’s especially relevant in the information age:
If a monopoly is ahead because they cut corners in terms of employee treatment and stole the competition’s ideas before they made it to market, would that concern you?
[/quote]
Not really, because if you treat your employees like shit you will be left with people who have no other options and those are not the people who will keep you on top.
I would be interested to hear how you think you can steal something that has not made it to the market.
Sounds like a challenge to do that.
[/quote]
It happens all the time and is the reason for patent laws. If someone comes up with an idea and doesn’t patent it first, or their idea is found out before it’s patented, they will not make money off of that idea. If they can’t make money off of their idea, they have no reason to try to come up with it in the first place. A monopoly who steals one of these ideas will be able to make it at a much cheaper price than the original person with the idea would have been able to. Therefore, the only person who will suffer in that situation is the person who thought up a great idea that benefited everyone except for themself.
Microsoft in particular has been sued countless times for taking other’s ideas, and I’m not talking about them buying the ideas and then getting sued for making so much money.[/quote]
First, if your patent is pending they can go fuck themselves.
Second, patents run out.
Third, patents are not exactly a “free market” idea.
Fourth, if you cannot get their market share this way, you can do it another way.
There are lots of hungry young entrepreneurs out there and the want very last one of your customers.
Hey, treat you employees like shit, treat your customers like shit, behave like a total asshole and see where it gets you. [/quote]
Why would you try to invent something new if there was no way for it to benefit you? Patents are essential to the promotion of new ideas. I personally know people who have made billions off of their ideas. One of them is a physicist who spent 2 years holed up in his own lab inventing a way to put CO2 directly into alcohol. He succeeded, got the patent for it, and has literally made billions. Would he have been motivated to spend 2 years acting on his idea if he wasn’t able to make a profit off of it? No, he probably would have been teaching.[/quote]
I am not saying that there is no point that can be made for patents, I am saying that they are not exactly a free market idea.
[/quote]
My point is that it’s a necessary government regulation for a capitalistic society.
I don’t think that a completely government hand’s off approach to the market is without faults, just like I don’t believe that tight regulation is helpful. Instead, I think there needs to be some sort of a balance between the two.
I see conservatives fighting all the times for a more free market, disregarding that there are some beneficial policies regulated by the government. Then there are democrats fighting for government regulation to “help out the little man” in just about everything while disregarding that this often prevents true progress.
So instead of either, we need a way of figuring out what policies are helpful based on how much progress the policies have promoted. In the case of patents, it’s pretty clear. For something like monopolies, we would need to compare market growth before and after the policies went into effect to determine whether or not they helped.
[quote]ironcross wrote:
[quote]orion wrote:
[quote]ironcross wrote:
[quote]orion wrote:
[quote]ironcross wrote:
[quote]orion wrote:
[quote]ironcross wrote:
I’m going to mention this again, because it’s especially relevant in the information age:
If a monopoly is ahead because they cut corners in terms of employee treatment and stole the competition’s ideas before they made it to market, would that concern you?
[/quote]
Not really, because if you treat your employees like shit you will be left with people who have no other options and those are not the people who will keep you on top.
I would be interested to hear how you think you can steal something that has not made it to the market.
Sounds like a challenge to do that.
[/quote]
It happens all the time and is the reason for patent laws. If someone comes up with an idea and doesn’t patent it first, or their idea is found out before it’s patented, they will not make money off of that idea. If they can’t make money off of their idea, they have no reason to try to come up with it in the first place. A monopoly who steals one of these ideas will be able to make it at a much cheaper price than the original person with the idea would have been able to. Therefore, the only person who will suffer in that situation is the person who thought up a great idea that benefited everyone except for themself.
Microsoft in particular has been sued countless times for taking other’s ideas, and I’m not talking about them buying the ideas and then getting sued for making so much money.[/quote]
First, if your patent is pending they can go fuck themselves.
Second, patents run out.
Third, patents are not exactly a “free market” idea.
Fourth, if you cannot get their market share this way, you can do it another way.
There are lots of hungry young entrepreneurs out there and the want very last one of your customers.
Hey, treat you employees like shit, treat your customers like shit, behave like a total asshole and see where it gets you. [/quote]
Why would you try to invent something new if there was no way for it to benefit you? Patents are essential to the promotion of new ideas. I personally know people who have made billions off of their ideas. One of them is a physicist who spent 2 years holed up in his own lab inventing a way to put CO2 directly into alcohol. He succeeded, got the patent for it, and has literally made billions. Would he have been motivated to spend 2 years acting on his idea if he wasn’t able to make a profit off of it? No, he probably would have been teaching.[/quote]
I am not saying that there is no point that can be made for patents, I am saying that they are not exactly a free market idea.
[/quote]
My point is that it’s a necessary government regulation for a capitalistic society.
I don’t think that a completely government hand’s off approach to the market is without faults, just like I don’t believe that tight regulation is helpful. Instead, I think there needs to be some sort of a balance between the two.
I see conservatives fighting all the times for a more free market, disregarding that there are some beneficial policies regulated by the government. Then there are democrats fighting for government regulation to “help out the little man” in just about everything while disregarding that this often prevents true progress.
So instead of either, we need a way of figuring out what policies are helpful based on how much progress the policies have promoted. In the case of patents, it’s pretty clear. For something like monopolies, we would need to compare market growth before and after the policies went into effect to determine whether or not they helped.
[/quote]
Yeah, see, here is where we differ.
I do not think that you can find a set of reasonable rules and then implement them.
Even if you could, those programs and regulations would grow like a cancer.
Always, without fail.
Letting the market take care of it may be chaotic, noisy and somewhat bewildering, but also ruthlessly efficient.
[quote]orion wrote:
[quote]ironcross wrote:
[quote]orion wrote:
[quote]ironcross wrote:
[quote]orion wrote:
[quote]ironcross wrote:
[quote]orion wrote:
[quote]ironcross wrote:
I’m going to mention this again, because it’s especially relevant in the information age:
If a monopoly is ahead because they cut corners in terms of employee treatment and stole the competition’s ideas before they made it to market, would that concern you?
[/quote]
Not really, because if you treat your employees like shit you will be left with people who have no other options and those are not the people who will keep you on top.
I would be interested to hear how you think you can steal something that has not made it to the market.
Sounds like a challenge to do that.
[/quote]
It happens all the time and is the reason for patent laws. If someone comes up with an idea and doesn’t patent it first, or their idea is found out before it’s patented, they will not make money off of that idea. If they can’t make money off of their idea, they have no reason to try to come up with it in the first place. A monopoly who steals one of these ideas will be able to make it at a much cheaper price than the original person with the idea would have been able to. Therefore, the only person who will suffer in that situation is the person who thought up a great idea that benefited everyone except for themself.
Microsoft in particular has been sued countless times for taking other’s ideas, and I’m not talking about them buying the ideas and then getting sued for making so much money.[/quote]
First, if your patent is pending they can go fuck themselves.
Second, patents run out.
Third, patents are not exactly a “free market” idea.
Fourth, if you cannot get their market share this way, you can do it another way.
There are lots of hungry young entrepreneurs out there and the want very last one of your customers.
Hey, treat you employees like shit, treat your customers like shit, behave like a total asshole and see where it gets you. [/quote]
Why would you try to invent something new if there was no way for it to benefit you? Patents are essential to the promotion of new ideas. I personally know people who have made billions off of their ideas. One of them is a physicist who spent 2 years holed up in his own lab inventing a way to put CO2 directly into alcohol. He succeeded, got the patent for it, and has literally made billions. Would he have been motivated to spend 2 years acting on his idea if he wasn’t able to make a profit off of it? No, he probably would have been teaching.[/quote]
I am not saying that there is no point that can be made for patents, I am saying that they are not exactly a free market idea.
[/quote]
My point is that it’s a necessary government regulation for a capitalistic society.
I don’t think that a completely government hand’s off approach to the market is without faults, just like I don’t believe that tight regulation is helpful. Instead, I think there needs to be some sort of a balance between the two.
I see conservatives fighting all the times for a more free market, disregarding that there are some beneficial policies regulated by the government. Then there are democrats fighting for government regulation to “help out the little man” in just about everything while disregarding that this often prevents true progress.
So instead of either, we need a way of figuring out what policies are helpful based on how much progress the policies have promoted. In the case of patents, it’s pretty clear. For something like monopolies, we would need to compare market growth before and after the policies went into effect to determine whether or not they helped.
[/quote]
Yeah, see, here is where we differ.
I do not think that you can find a set of reasonable rules and then implement them.
Even if you could, those programs and regulations would grow like a cancer.
Always, without fail.
Letting the market take care of it may be chaotic, noisy and somewhat bewildering, but also ruthlessly efficient.
[/quote]
But we just pointed out that this is not the case with patents. A patent is an example of a reasonable rule without which the market would slow down. You cannot say it’s impossible to find reasonable rules because we just found one. What we (the government) hasn’t been real good about doing is being selective and doing away with all regulations that are not shown to increase market growth. So today, it’s nearly impossible to tell that some regulations do.
I agree that “programs” are not good and I can’t think of one that has lead to real market growth.
[quote]ironcross wrote:
[quote]orion wrote:
[quote]ironcross wrote:
[quote]orion wrote:
[quote]ironcross wrote:
[quote]orion wrote:
[quote]ironcross wrote:
[quote]orion wrote:
[quote]ironcross wrote:
I’m going to mention this again, because it’s especially relevant in the information age:
If a monopoly is ahead because they cut corners in terms of employee treatment and stole the competition’s ideas before they made it to market, would that concern you?
[/quote]
Not really, because if you treat your employees like shit you will be left with people who have no other options and those are not the people who will keep you on top.
I would be interested to hear how you think you can steal something that has not made it to the market.
Sounds like a challenge to do that.
[/quote]
It happens all the time and is the reason for patent laws. If someone comes up with an idea and doesn’t patent it first, or their idea is found out before it’s patented, they will not make money off of that idea. If they can’t make money off of their idea, they have no reason to try to come up with it in the first place. A monopoly who steals one of these ideas will be able to make it at a much cheaper price than the original person with the idea would have been able to. Therefore, the only person who will suffer in that situation is the person who thought up a great idea that benefited everyone except for themself.
Microsoft in particular has been sued countless times for taking other’s ideas, and I’m not talking about them buying the ideas and then getting sued for making so much money.[/quote]
First, if your patent is pending they can go fuck themselves.
Second, patents run out.
Third, patents are not exactly a “free market” idea.
Fourth, if you cannot get their market share this way, you can do it another way.
There are lots of hungry young entrepreneurs out there and the want very last one of your customers.
Hey, treat you employees like shit, treat your customers like shit, behave like a total asshole and see where it gets you. [/quote]
Why would you try to invent something new if there was no way for it to benefit you? Patents are essential to the promotion of new ideas. I personally know people who have made billions off of their ideas. One of them is a physicist who spent 2 years holed up in his own lab inventing a way to put CO2 directly into alcohol. He succeeded, got the patent for it, and has literally made billions. Would he have been motivated to spend 2 years acting on his idea if he wasn’t able to make a profit off of it? No, he probably would have been teaching.[/quote]
I am not saying that there is no point that can be made for patents, I am saying that they are not exactly a free market idea.
[/quote]
My point is that it’s a necessary government regulation for a capitalistic society.
I don’t think that a completely government hand’s off approach to the market is without faults, just like I don’t believe that tight regulation is helpful. Instead, I think there needs to be some sort of a balance between the two.
I see conservatives fighting all the times for a more free market, disregarding that there are some beneficial policies regulated by the government. Then there are democrats fighting for government regulation to “help out the little man” in just about everything while disregarding that this often prevents true progress.
So instead of either, we need a way of figuring out what policies are helpful based on how much progress the policies have promoted. In the case of patents, it’s pretty clear. For something like monopolies, we would need to compare market growth before and after the policies went into effect to determine whether or not they helped.
[/quote]
Yeah, see, here is where we differ.
I do not think that you can find a set of reasonable rules and then implement them.
Even if you could, those programs and regulations would grow like a cancer.
Always, without fail.
Letting the market take care of it may be chaotic, noisy and somewhat bewildering, but also ruthlessly efficient.
[/quote]
But we just pointed out that this is not the case with patents. A patent is an example of a reasonable rule without which the market would slow down. You cannot say it’s impossible to find reasonable rules because we just found one. What we (the government) hasn’t been real good about doing is being selective and doing away with all regulations that are not shown to increase market growth. So today, it’s nearly impossible to tell that some regulations do.
I agree that “programs” are not good and I can’t think of one that has lead to real market growth. [/quote]
Yeah, there is a very good point to be made that some interventions might be helpful.
But, if you give in to temptation a lot of others will follow.
I would rather let the chips fall where they may than risking a heavily regulated economy.
That is probably not optimal, but far better than the alternative.
[quote]orion wrote:
Yeah, there is a very good point to be made that some interventions might be helpful.
But, if you give in to temptation a lot of others will follow.
I would rather let the chips fall where they may than risking a heavily regulated economy.
That is probably not optimal, but far better than the alternative. [/quote]
Why does it need to be either/or? Currently it seems like there is very little regulation on the regulations (LOL I know that’s hilarious), and that is actually what’s causing the problems with them. There is no system by which unhelpful regulations are QUICKLY discarded. In my opinion, that’s where the problem with regulation lies. No examination or process exists with which to destroy harmful regulations. If it did, there sure as hell would be far less of them!