291
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 12 Aug 2024
291 points (98.7% liked)
Technology
59200 readers
2022 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related content.
- Be excellent to each another!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
Approved Bots
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
You're just wrong.
IP is what creates most jobs right now. Let's take software development for example. That would be a 100% share of that. Without IP protection they wouldn't be able to compete. Even open-source software wouldn't exist because they are also protected by licenses.
This statement is such populistic bs and completely contradictory in itself. If there was no law and order and no IP protection, the big companies will be the only ones to survive. Just think this through for a second. How is a small company supposed to make profits by innovating? The big ones will immediately steal it and put them out of business because they have the economies of scale. Your lawyers will help even less when there is no law that protecs against that. So even if your conspiracy were correct, it's still a bad argument.
No it wouldn't. As I said before: manufacturing is easy. Logistics is easy. Inmovation is hard.
If nobody can make profits with innovating then nobody will do ressearch and development. We'll end up in a world where education is irrelevant, no meaningful innovation will be made and the companies will win that can manufacture the cheapest by cheap labor (as innovation is impossible to make). So slavery will ultimately win and innovation will he stifled.
There is a key point you don't seem to understand: competion in a world where innovation is not competitive is a terrible thing and half of our current digitalized economy will lose jobs.
Just think about this for a second. Take software development for example. Running a software, hosting a website, or operating servers for a service are all so incredibly cheap and easy to do. This is not what companies distinguish themselves with. The hard part is writing the software and that is entirely IP protected. If it weren't, then nobody would put work into this anymore. If 99% of your investment is software development and 1% hosting the service you developed, then why would anyone invest into that if the 99% can just be stolen after it's finished? The only way to make profits and be competitive in an IP-less world is to not develop or innovate, steal as much IP as possible, enslave people to manufacture as cheap as possible. I don't think this is the kind of competition you envision.
The software world is entirely dysfunctional because of IP. There's only so many ways to program a widget. If you didn't show up in time you get the snot sued out of you and you have to show in court you created that widget with zero input, contact, or experience with the big corporation. Good luck when that corporation is Microsoft or Apple. Open source code actually shows exactly how this would work. Linux has been forked how many times? And Ubuntu, one of the early distros is still going strong.
And if big business would never then explain patent trolls. If you want to talk about big business undercutting small ones out of business then we need to talk about monopoly laws, not patents.
Nobody said innovation was easy. But you brought up the software world. Specifically open source. Which shows that contrary to libertarian fantasies, innovation does indeed happen without guaranteed monetary compensation.
No. Education will not be irrelevant. And slavery will not win because these aren't patent and innovation issues. And companies will still innovate because people aren't going to stick around for old tech.
You haven't even begun to prove we'd lose half our jobs. This is just another ridiculous fear mongering segway.
And ah yes, why does open source software exist? Don't they know they're supposed to be making sure only they can work on that code?!? What's their motive if they aren't making money or hoarding it for their own ego like a dragon!
There is so much false information in your reply I don't even know where to start. Your idealized world is inherently illogical and cannot exist. You're against big corps and monopolies and seem to love the spirit of FOSS. But none of that logically implies any conclusions about IP and IP protection. You're confusing causation with correlation. I'll explain that below.
It only works because of IP. Software is IP: Software isn't manufactured, it's not produced, it has no operating cost, you cannot grab it, you can copy it indefinitely, etc. Take away IP protection, and the software developer can no longer pay their bills. The only one who can pay the bills is the one using the already developed software to build a service or materialized product. But that person does not need to pay the first one because he can just steal it.
If there were no protection on software, then nobody would develop it, this also counts for non-hobbyist FOSS projects. It's good that you brought up Linux as an example. Because Linux is also IP and is protected by laws and licenses. You cannot just freely copy a Linux distro. It needs to be under the same license and nothing more permissive than that. You can't just grap Linux, make it closed-source, modify it, and profit from it. Your Linux counterexample is actually a prime example why IP protection works. Linux is profitable because a lot of industries see value in it so they fund it. But the whole community thing only works because Linux has a license and there are laws that protect its existence and the work the developers do.
That's just wrong. First of all, there are laws on what can be patented and what is IP. Secondly, there are laws against monopolies. There are major law suits against Google and Apple right now and I see there being more in the future. I agree that there is a public and economic interest to prevent monopolies and anti-competitive behavior because they are a threat to our world economy. However, IP protection in general does not threaten anything like that. It's only remotely related. In a world without IP protection, monopolies would be even worse as these companies will always be the fastest to steal something and scale it to large economies.
FOSS does not mean free as in "free beer". This is a common misconception. FOSS software was never meant to be free-of-charge. FOSS means free as in "freedom to modify, use and distribute".
Innovation never happens at large scale without monetary compensation.
Sure, some smaller projects are developed by people in their free-time and provided as free-of-charge. But they are getting payed the rest of the day for, guess what, developing software with monetary intentions. How else are they going to pay their bills? The larger projects that people work at full time (Linux, Nextcloud come to mind) are funded either by donations, extra services or other means. They are always funded. And every one of the projects has a license that is defined by some IP protection law.
You're not against IP or monetizing IP. You're against big corps and monopolies squeezing them and misusing them for their own benefit. You need to make yourself clear what you're actually against. IP is a good thing and an incentive for innovation. Most importantly, it benefits the small innovators the most. What we need to do is write laws to stop monopolies from breaking the system.
I liked this discussion. However, I think both of you have different axioms. It's a pro-socialism vs pro-capitalism debate.
In capitalism, we need innovation to create new value. Or you can pollute water to sell water bottles which will have value now. It's up to citizens to decide what to restrict that was publicly available or what to innovate.
In socialism, the innovation is only happening where it needs to happen carefully planned and funded by the government.
I'm rather socialist, so I'd defend it:
Having a software with inability to modify is injustice, It's the same as polluting a water to sell it. Even if we need to pollute the water to sell it, it doesn't justify pollution.