[snips]
On Sat, 27 Jun 2009 12:16:28 +0100, Homer wrote:
>> Right, because, of course, every business developing new ideas should
>> be mandated to hand over those ideas immediately
>
> Those ideas are not those companies' property to "hand over" in the
> first place, objectively speaking. In law - yes, but not intrinsically.
Right, because *they* didn't spend millions or billions developing the
ideas. Oh, wait, they did. But of course, *you* should have free
access to them all, because you contributed... er... sorry, what was
your contribution again? Nothing? Ah, yes, that explains why you should
have free reign over their ideas.
Do you folks ever stop to actually think about what you're posting?
> Like I wrote:
> "The fact is that you (or your company) can never prove incontestably
> that you were the first, or even the /only/ person(s) to conceive
> this idea, and you certainly can't prove that this knowledge is in
> no way derivative of earlier and more fundamental knowledge,
> therefore your inalienable "right" to claim exclusive ownership and
> control of it is highly questionable"
And yet it's precisely because my company spent the money that the idea
got developed, turned into something useful, where it wasn't before. But
let's ignore that, and ignore the money required to do that, and just
whine that the idea should be free to everyone, everyone who contributed
absolutely nothing to developing the idea, just cuz, neener, neener.
Yes, makes perfect sense.
>> because this, obviously, is the best possible thing for its future, its
>> workers, its shareholders. None of that silly-ass stuff about, oh,
>> actually making money matters.
>
> It matters, but there is more than the false dichotomy of just this one
> way of "making money". I'm sure it also "matters" to bank robbers that
> they be successful, should that mean we support their endeavours?
Why does it figure someone defending thievery would defend thieves?
>> Tell you what, Skippy, how about you toss that notion out to 1,000
>> random companies pouring millions - or billions - into R&D and see how
>> well that notion goes over.
>
> If the extent of this activity somehow lends credence to its
> justification, then presumably you also support the idea that copyright
> "piracy" is equally justified, since by all accounts it is a global
> epidemic.
Again, nice defence of thieving. Also, nice complete ignoring of the bit
about contributing. You remember, the company contributed money to
developing the idea, the thief simply takes it? If the thief wants the
ideas, there's a simple way to do it: contribute.
Did *you* put millions into the development of the idea? No? Until you
do, how about you let the grown-ups who actually *do* the work, *put in*
the money, *contribute* the effort, actually decide whether or not they
might want to be compensated for that. If *they* choose to give it away,
I'm all for it, bully for them. Some whiny little freeloader trying to
insist the give it away just because he's too cheap or lazy to merit
access to the idea, however, just doesn't cut it.
|
|
