Homer wrote:
You're a clueless idiot. You sound like a mixture of Homer and High
Plains Hypocrite.
Unlikely, since I would never support patents of any kind, and I
certainly wouldn't describe any kind of "evil" as necessary.
You can whine all you like about companies "needing to protect" or
"needing to recover" their investments, but the fact is they have no
more "right" to such protection than I do if I bet on the horses. What
businesses /think/ they "need", and what they should actually be
entitled to are not necessarily the same.
Business is an *opportunity*, not a *right*. Investment is a *risk*, not
a *guarantee*. By utilising unethical laws (and lobbying to strengthen
them) to implement unnatural "protections" for things that should have
no such protection, monopolists pervert the Free Market Economy into a
cartel of racketeering operations. Perhaps you adore the concept of
gangsterism, being of dubious moral backbone yourself, but I don't.
And since you apparently still haven't figured it out yet, let me
explain what the *ethical* business model should be: Build products or
provide services, then sell them. *Not* "ideas", but the actual tangible
manifestation of those ideas. Period. That's the ethical means of making
a profit *and* covering costs ... *all* costs, including R&D. I don't
give a crap if some company claims they can't research *and* break even.
Tough. If entire industries could manage perfectly well for centuries
without patents, then these whining; greedy companies can too. Extortion
is *not* an acceptable business model.
Ideas are not property, should never have been considered property, and
should certainly never have been given unnatural protection by the law.
It may well be "advantageous" to do so, but then so is bank robbery and
narcotics distribution ... that doesn't make it *right*.
Awesome summary. I agree with every statement in this. But would add one
thing: the deciding factor on which products are successful is, and
should always be, the demand for it. If a product is crap, it deserves
to die no matter how much it cost to produce. And crap products should
not be given extended life by protectionism at the expense of superior
alternatives. Free markets cannot and should not be controlled. That's
communism. Look at the MAFIAA fiasco for proof of that, yet they're
still all bleating on about more DRM, more restrictions. Result: Making
life difficult for John Q Public who obeys the law whilst the hardcore
pirates laugh their arses off as crack after crack hits the black market.
QED.
Not often enough to penetrate Hardon's thick skull, apparently.
His drivellings on IP protection are the ultimate target of the
multinationals. I think I'll take the view of an expert with an
indisputable background in the IT sector as a measure of the true nature
of software patents:
"If people had understood how patents would be granted when most of
today's ideas were invented and had taken out patents, the industry
would be at a complete standstill today. The solution is patenting as
much as we can. A future startup with no patents of its own will be
forced to pay whatever price the giants choose to impose. That price
might be high. Established companies have an interest in excluding
future competitors." - Bill Gates, 1991.
Hardon Quick or Bill Gates? Who understands the software industry patent
landscape better? Place yer votes!
|
|
