- I always remember WHO really ruined the things - those who asked government for bread and circuses and told it that it could do anything as long as it delivered those things.
but nothing will happen with crazy amount of work and sweat.
- without crazy amount of work.
I have NEVER worked as hard when I was on a permanent position (95-2000) and when I was contracting for other companies (2001-2009) as I have to do now, that I am running my own IT business, selling products that I built myself.
The idea that people just have to be lucky and just know the right people - this idea obviously is true for a number of cases, such as POLITICS and government protected monopolies (banking, insurance, military, energy, education, food, whatever).
When it's your own business, who do you think you go to for help? Government? You do everything you can to succeed and if you fail, there will be nobody standing there, socialising your loss.
Only big government related corporations have that privilege.
There IS entitlement for large corporations and for majority of employees, because government gives them entitlements and puts obligations on the employers. Well, guess what, the large corporate employers, who are connected to the government have ways of socialising the costs of those entitlement programs for the employees, but the small businesses, the people who DO pull themselves by the 'bootstraps' have none of that, they ARE the ones that end up paying all these nonsense taxes, they ARE the ones who are forced to comply with the insane regulations, because they have no lobbyists and they have no time to do any of that politicking themselves.
Who you know and luck are important, but nothing will happen with crazy amount of work and sweat. I know people who started their store chains from scratch, people who have other types of businesses, some in IT, some in manufacturing. It take insane amount of work to get their businesses off the ground.
I am running my own businesses, working all the time. I am posting on/. when I am in front of a computer between compiling code, checking how the installations are doing. When I go for business trips, you won't see any of my comments, so as an example for 3 weeks from 8th of March I was almost completely absent from here, I was meeting people, participating in exhibitions, going to different countries and cities. Work never ends.
The work never ends at all when you run your own business, and making it a profitable business is extremely hard. People who I know all work all the time, weekends, nights, they don't take time off like their employees.
The problem with the approach of that VP is that it is NOT HIS MONEY he is playing with.
Certainly almost anybody can come up with dozens of ideas for a 'business', ideas, as they say, are dime a dozen. What makes an idea work is implementation, a lot of sweat, a lot of resources dumped into it, some luck (hopefully you have at least a little bit of that, otherwise sucks to be you).
But the problem with the approach of that VP is that he is not the one taking the risk, he is placing the risk upon the company, is it done with the approval of the investors, shareholders, owners?
Certainly some money can be allocated by any company of a sufficient enough size to try out new ideas (if they make at least some sense from POV of that business), but again, if the failure rate is too high for those ideas, then it really becomes questionable whether the company should be doing it, unless it is the primary business of the company - like a venture capital firm.
I would say that a company should promote innovation, but it should not sign blank cheques to anybody just because they have an idea, that's a recipe for a bankruptcy.
After years of controversy regarding hydrofracking including ground water contamination and disclosure of chemical solutions, the results of the study, if conclusive, could influence the cost of natural gas due to increased regulations on wastewater disposal.
- all this stuff is BS. There is no contamination of groundwater with chemicals, the chemicals are sent through when the casing is built already, there is no groundwater at the depths at which the chemicals are released either.
OK, so this was one way gov't increased production prices and got its bribes, what now?
According to a recently proposed abstract by the United States Geological Survey, hydraulic fracturing, or more specifically the disposal of fracking wastewater, may be directly correlated to the increase in seismic activity in the midwest.
- aha, so releasing gas from under the ground and replacing it with some liquid causes seismic activity? Well, I don't know, it sounds wrong, but I do not know.
However I do know that natural gas is a relatively cheap form of energy, production of which in fact does decrease prices for gas in US, because it's very hard to move gas from the continent to another one to sell (possible, but difficult, it's not oil, it has to be compressed - liquefied first).
I suggest that what USGS is after is a way to get some bribe money, first from government for this study, then from the industry. After all, that's how many of the professional scientists were funded during the time of anti-smoking movement.
building multiple roads to allow a free competitive market to operate (and may the best road win) is an obvious nonsense.
- and yet it is done that way even now. There are plenty of ways getting from point A to point B, some ways are more expensive (have to pay a toll) and yet people prefer them, because those roads are mostly better and maybe more convenient, maybe there are fewer cops there, maybe there is less road maintenance going on at any point in time.
The same applies to water, gas, sewers, buildings, and everything else that has a fixed location,
- yeah, shows what you know.
There are many competing services, even for water, gas, sewers, buildings and everything else. It doesn't have to be 2 buildings in one exact spot, but it can be a more convenient, better, bigger building just around the corner.
Water, gas, sewers, they can all be provided with multiple carriers, there absolutely can be multiple ways to provide those services, some include building new infrastructure, some include different ways of delivery. Yes, even sewers can be managed by different means, not just central sewer system.
This is just one reason why a free market cannot provide infrastructure,
- this statement is false.
The ONLY reason that there are monopolies in this is government taking upon itself to set up licensing and tax structures that prevent competition.
The free market is simply the wrong tool for this, and it's very easy to see that except when you're a priori biased to see free markets as the answer to everything.
- more nonsense. The government is the wrong tool for this, you just didn't grow out of it yet.
The people who work in their freight centres once went to school, maybe enjoyed a happy childhood (although I doubt it) and just *lived* - and everything necessary for them to grow up there was 100% funded by taxes.
- nonsense. Everything that people enjoy was CREATED by somebody, and if government comes in and steals money from some people to give it to others, it doesn't mean government CREATED any of that wealth, it only means government is a legalised robbery mechanism.
Morally speaking, companies have an obligation to their communities.
- that's a load of crap. Companies have an obligation to make money for themselves, that's all, they have no obligation whatsoever to anybody to provide anything, and they only provide something because they want to make money, and that's the best way to have this done.
Anything that companies do is either approved by the market, which buys into it, or it's rejected by the market, and the company fails.
No consumer has an 'obligation' to a company to buy its product, no company has an 'obligation' to any consumer beyond what it clearly states in contract.
All that taxes came from the fact that Rome was a Republic, thus allowing plenty of actual private enterprise, which in fact created all that wealth that the government could then steal in form of taxes. They had some of that, and how did it end? It ended with the Republic degenerating into Democracy, once Republic allowed all that wealth to accumulate and the mob then demanded that wealth be stolen from producers and redistributed among people 'fairly'. Bread and circuses. Does it not remind you of something that's happening now?
Since I have a comment on the topic of taxes and infrastructure, I'll link to it, that's what hypertext is for.
It's a huge misunderstanding that there is a need for government controlled and built/maintained infrastructure. People build infrastructure without any government when there is a need for it, especially if they have enough savings capital, which is accrued without income, payroll, corporate taxes.
There are private roads, electrical grid was done privately in the early days, before government was used to ensure a monopoly in that area, same with rail, same with air travel, same with everything.
Of-course I wouldn't actually care that much if the ONLY reason government taxed was to do some research and build some infrastructure, but it never actually STOPS there. It always degenerates into a government controlled society, the freedoms are destroyed.
I rather have freedom from government intervention and completely private infrastructure than government controlled infrastructure and no freedoms at all, and those are our choices - you give them a finger, they bite off the entire hand.
You certainly are not buying civilisation with taxes, if that were even remotely correct, we would have had 'civilisation' much earlier, and when I say: "civilisation", I am talking about the rapid progress that we have enjoyed since the beginning of the free market capitalist movement and industrialisation.
You could pay all the taxes you wished forever and ever, and you have, since before the pharaohs and on and on, but the only "civilisation" that you got was on par with those pyramids - the tombs for the Kings.
The real civilisation cannot be bought with taxes.
The real civilisation is created in the free market with people making everyday voluntary decisions on what to buy, making everyday voluntary decisions on what to work on, what to produce, how much to save, where to invest, etc.
None of what you believe to be 'civilisation' is actually that.
It's a good start that Amazon didn't pay income taxes in UK, now it's just the rest of the companies and people that need to stop paying them. It's a step in the right direction.
Of-course politicians are livid, they want to spend other people's money.
Either way you're producing value to the operators of the site by encouraging user interaction.
- Ok, but if that were the case, then why would wild swings in comment moderation affect 'karma', which gives moderators the ability to silence the commentator? Karma on this is not just a meaningless number, it is used to shut down a poster, so just pushing it down a bit prevents one from making more than 25 comments, then less than that, eventually the ability to comment disappears altogether.
In fact I argue that/. moderating mechanism causes (probably unintentionally) posters whose comments generate that sort of activity to be prevented from commenting. If that is on purpose, then that's fine, if that's an unintended consequence, then it's a really bad one.
I have entire pages of comments (in fact if you just look at my comments right now, it's filled with that stuff), with comments that had been moderated up and down a few times, +5 to -1 to +5 to -1 or 0. All that while there are many replies to them, so clearly, these comments generate 'interest', whatever it is.
Does it make sense to have wild swings in comment moderation in that case, doesn't it mean that in reality those comments are at least 'interesting' enough to a large number of people?
It looks to me, the real problem with/. is a weird moderation scheme that encourages people to moderate not based on merit of the comment, but instead based on their own biases and it's used to silence opinions.
Wouldn't you think of the children? Those very children, whose future you are selling out by putting all of your current and past expenses on their tab?
Wouldn't you think of the children, those very children that you are leaving with all these hatred around the world because of all the illegal and immoral wars that are you sending children into?
Wouldn't you think of the children, the same children that have no sound economy to look forward to, because you have chased away all of the savings and investment capital and all of the manufacturing and production out of your countries, because you just have to buy everything you, including the biggest governments can with fake money?
Wouldn't you think of those children, whose freedoms you are stealing by creating all these laws that ensure that the children basically end up leaving in prison like conditions, strip searched at every point, fined, jailed, regulated, taxed, etc.?
Wouldn't you think of the children, same ones that will have no knowledge or real education but huge debts, because you are lying to them that they need all that government education while putting them on the government guaranteed (and thus seemingly endless) loan needle?
Wouldn't you think of the children, who won't be able to run their own businesses due to all of the protections you are giving to your preferred monopolies, all of the regulations, laws, taxes, licenses, bail outs, stimulus, etc.etc., everything you do, when you prop up failing corporations you like so much and ensure that nobody can compete with them?
But at least you are making sure that the children don't see those 'offending' pornography images and videos. Of-course that's just a pretence that you are running in order to secure some form of total control over the information on the Internet, the only real outlet of actual data that those very children can use to learn something useful about the world around them.
Of-course when a real Statesmanappears and starts talking about the real problem, he is marginalised, the power pretends he does not exist and I am sure if he becomes a real threat he would be dealt with swiftly by that power.
Once there is a PRINCIPLE of such a ridiculous idea as copyright and patent, then the length of the term is just a detail up to lengthening at any time.
Copyrights and patents must be abolished altogether.
It doesn't matter how evil a person is, what matters is that the US public is fine with giving away its rights and growing a huge government that then can abuse them, once they have no rights left.
When I say: giving away rights, I mean - allowing the government to overstep the boundaries that are set by the Constitution in the first place, be it printing money, any of the socialist programs (SS, Medicare), starting illegal wars (all wars that are undeclared), bailing out companies, meddling with business in any way, all of the executive power, etc.
Giving away rights because of perceived benefits does only one thing in reality: takes away your freedoms and then you can't stop this, it becomes an avalanche, and then you have Patriot Act, NDAA, extra-judicial killing, etc.
That's what you get with the huge government empire, and when I point out that I would like more freedoms instead in order to be able to get myself a nuclear powered car - this place throws a hissy fit.
No, I am not talking about 'justifying theft' at all. The question was: "who benefits the most?"
My answer is: consumer benefits the most. I am giving an answer without talking about morality etc., whatever. No, it's not moral or just that this got stolen.
Yes, it is true that consumer will benefit the most.
The socialists here will say: bullshit, those who'll make money from this stolen tech will benefit the most, and if they are only talking about relative value that the company gets compared to any one or a small group of consumers, well, they have a point.
However from point of view of the market it's just more competition in the market and when you take into account millions of people who'll be able to buy cheaper AMOLED displays, whatever they are - TVs, phones, computer screens, etc., then you can understand that the real wealth that was created is not money, it's these very screens. It's supply of something that didn't exist before.
This will cause problems to the original developer company (Samsung) in that they will not be able to follow normal market pricing curve, it will be offset to the negative side by some amount, but they will still be in the black, just not as much. Of-course they will probably sue the other companies that will benefit from this theft.
However again: I am always against patents and copyrights, but I am for the trade secrets for reasons similar to this development - the competitors cannot lock anybody out of the market but they are welcome to develop their own competing technologies or they can try and steal, and at the end it is consumer who gains.
And really, given how socialist this place is, shouldn't you be on the side of the consumer at all times, especially when the other side is a big company? Why the double standard this time?
Slashdot Mirror
remember that. remember who really ruined things.
- I always remember WHO really ruined the things - those who asked government for bread and circuses and told it that it could do anything as long as it delivered those things.
but nothing will happen with crazy amount of work and sweat.
- without crazy amount of work.
I have NEVER worked as hard when I was on a permanent position (95-2000) and when I was contracting for other companies (2001-2009) as I have to do now, that I am running my own IT business, selling products that I built myself.
The idea that people just have to be lucky and just know the right people - this idea obviously is true for a number of cases, such as POLITICS and government protected monopolies (banking, insurance, military, energy, education, food, whatever).
When it's your own business, who do you think you go to for help? Government? You do everything you can to succeed and if you fail, there will be nobody standing there, socialising your loss.
Only big government related corporations have that privilege.
There IS entitlement for large corporations and for majority of employees, because government gives them entitlements and puts obligations on the employers. Well, guess what, the large corporate employers, who are connected to the government have ways of socialising the costs of those entitlement programs for the employees, but the small businesses, the people who DO pull themselves by the 'bootstraps' have none of that, they ARE the ones that end up paying all these nonsense taxes, they ARE the ones who are forced to comply with the insane regulations, because they have no lobbyists and they have no time to do any of that politicking themselves.
Try and run your own business.
Who you know and luck are important, but nothing will happen with crazy amount of work and sweat. I know people who started their store chains from scratch, people who have other types of businesses, some in IT, some in manufacturing. It take insane amount of work to get their businesses off the ground.
I am running my own businesses, working all the time. I am posting on /. when I am in front of a computer between compiling code, checking how the installations are doing. When I go for business trips, you won't see any of my comments, so as an example for 3 weeks from 8th of March I was almost completely absent from here, I was meeting people, participating in exhibitions, going to different countries and cities. Work never ends.
The work never ends at all when you run your own business, and making it a profitable business is extremely hard. People who I know all work all the time, weekends, nights, they don't take time off like their employees.
The problem with the approach of that VP is that it is NOT HIS MONEY he is playing with.
Certainly almost anybody can come up with dozens of ideas for a 'business', ideas, as they say, are dime a dozen. What makes an idea work is implementation, a lot of sweat, a lot of resources dumped into it, some luck (hopefully you have at least a little bit of that, otherwise sucks to be you).
But the problem with the approach of that VP is that he is not the one taking the risk, he is placing the risk upon the company, is it done with the approval of the investors, shareholders, owners?
Certainly some money can be allocated by any company of a sufficient enough size to try out new ideas (if they make at least some sense from POV of that business), but again, if the failure rate is too high for those ideas, then it really becomes questionable whether the company should be doing it, unless it is the primary business of the company - like a venture capital firm.
I would say that a company should promote innovation, but it should not sign blank cheques to anybody just because they have an idea, that's a recipe for a bankruptcy.
After years of controversy regarding hydrofracking including ground water contamination and disclosure of chemical solutions, the results of the study, if conclusive, could influence the cost of natural gas due to increased regulations on wastewater disposal.
- all this stuff is BS. There is no contamination of groundwater with chemicals, the chemicals are sent through when the casing is built already, there is no groundwater at the depths at which the chemicals are released either.
OK, so this was one way gov't increased production prices and got its bribes, what now?
According to a recently proposed abstract by the United States Geological Survey, hydraulic fracturing, or more specifically the disposal of fracking wastewater, may be directly correlated to the increase in seismic activity in the midwest.
- aha, so releasing gas from under the ground and replacing it with some liquid causes seismic activity? Well, I don't know, it sounds wrong, but I do not know.
However I do know that natural gas is a relatively cheap form of energy, production of which in fact does decrease prices for gas in US, because it's very hard to move gas from the continent to another one to sell (possible, but difficult, it's not oil, it has to be compressed - liquefied first).
I suggest that what USGS is after is a way to get some bribe money, first from government for this study, then from the industry. After all, that's how many of the professional scientists were funded during the time of anti-smoking movement.
building multiple roads to allow a free competitive market to operate (and may the best road win) is an obvious nonsense.
- and yet it is done that way even now. There are plenty of ways getting from point A to point B, some ways are more expensive (have to pay a toll) and yet people prefer them, because those roads are mostly better and maybe more convenient, maybe there are fewer cops there, maybe there is less road maintenance going on at any point in time.
The same applies to water, gas, sewers, buildings, and everything else that has a fixed location,
- yeah, shows what you know.
There are many competing services, even for water, gas, sewers, buildings and everything else. It doesn't have to be 2 buildings in one exact spot, but it can be a more convenient, better, bigger building just around the corner.
Water, gas, sewers, they can all be provided with multiple carriers, there absolutely can be multiple ways to provide those services, some include building new infrastructure, some include different ways of delivery. Yes, even sewers can be managed by different means, not just central sewer system.
This is just one reason why a free market cannot provide infrastructure,
- this statement is false.
The ONLY reason that there are monopolies in this is government taking upon itself to set up licensing and tax structures that prevent competition.
The free market is simply the wrong tool for this, and it's very easy to see that except when you're a priori biased to see free markets as the answer to everything.
- more nonsense. The government is the wrong tool for this, you just didn't grow out of it yet.
The people who work in their freight centres once went to school, maybe enjoyed a happy childhood (although I doubt it) and just *lived* - and everything necessary for them to grow up there was 100% funded by taxes.
- nonsense. Everything that people enjoy was CREATED by somebody, and if government comes in and steals money from some people to give it to others, it doesn't mean government CREATED any of that wealth, it only means government is a legalised robbery mechanism.
Morally speaking, companies have an obligation to their communities.
- that's a load of crap. Companies have an obligation to make money for themselves, that's all, they have no obligation whatsoever to anybody to provide anything, and they only provide something because they want to make money, and that's the best way to have this done.
Anything that companies do is either approved by the market, which buys into it, or it's rejected by the market, and the company fails.
No consumer has an 'obligation' to a company to buy its product, no company has an 'obligation' to any consumer beyond what it clearly states in contract.
Watch this thread if you want to see it in action. It's been up and down already, it will be probably another couple of times. It's pretty consistent, there is a pattern there.
All that taxes came from the fact that Rome was a Republic, thus allowing plenty of actual private enterprise, which in fact created all that wealth that the government could then steal in form of taxes. They had some of that, and how did it end? It ended with the Republic degenerating into Democracy, once Republic allowed all that wealth to accumulate and the mob then demanded that wealth be stolen from producers and redistributed among people 'fairly'. Bread and circuses. Does it not remind you of something that's happening now?
Since I have a comment on the topic of taxes and infrastructure, I'll link to it, that's what hypertext is for.
It's a huge misunderstanding that there is a need for government controlled and built/maintained infrastructure. People build infrastructure without any government when there is a need for it, especially if they have enough savings capital, which is accrued without income, payroll, corporate taxes.
There are private roads, electrical grid was done privately in the early days, before government was used to ensure a monopoly in that area, same with rail, same with air travel, same with everything.
Of-course I wouldn't actually care that much if the ONLY reason government taxed was to do some research and build some infrastructure, but it never actually STOPS there. It always degenerates into a government controlled society, the freedoms are destroyed.
I rather have freedom from government intervention and completely private infrastructure than government controlled infrastructure and no freedoms at all, and those are our choices - you give them a finger, they bite off the entire hand.
You certainly are not buying civilisation with taxes, if that were even remotely correct, we would have had 'civilisation' much earlier, and when I say: "civilisation", I am talking about the rapid progress that we have enjoyed since the beginning of the free market capitalist movement and industrialisation.
You could pay all the taxes you wished forever and ever, and you have, since before the pharaohs and on and on, but the only "civilisation" that you got was on par with those pyramids - the tombs for the Kings.
The real civilisation cannot be bought with taxes.
The real civilisation is created in the free market with people making everyday voluntary decisions on what to buy, making everyday voluntary decisions on what to work on, what to produce, how much to save, where to invest, etc.
None of what you believe to be 'civilisation' is actually that.
It's a good start that Amazon didn't pay income taxes in UK, now it's just the rest of the companies and people that need to stop paying them. It's a step in the right direction.
Of-course politicians are livid, they want to spend other people's money.
I mean a dictionary attack.
1 attempt per 10 seconds, so 360 attempts per hour, 8640 per 24 hours, 3,153,600 per year or 31 million passwords per 10 years.
Well, if your password is not in some rainbow table and it's at least moderately strong, then you should be fine.
I doubt any moderators return to old stories to down rate posts
- wrong. Quite a number of moderators do this often enough.
If your post is unfairly buried, repost to make yourself heard. Abusive mods eventually run out of points.
- that works if you are not limited to 5 comments because those wild swings prevent you from posting.
Either way you're producing value to the operators of the site by encouraging user interaction.
- Ok, but if that were the case, then why would wild swings in comment moderation affect 'karma', which gives moderators the ability to silence the commentator? Karma on this is not just a meaningless number, it is used to shut down a poster, so just pushing it down a bit prevents one from making more than 25 comments, then less than that, eventually the ability to comment disappears altogether.
In fact I argue that /. moderating mechanism causes (probably unintentionally) posters whose comments generate that sort of activity to be prevented from commenting. If that is on purpose, then that's fine, if that's an unintended consequence, then it's a really bad one.
How about abusive moderation?
I have entire pages of comments (in fact if you just look at my comments right now, it's filled with that stuff), with comments that had been moderated up and down a few times, +5 to -1 to +5 to -1 or 0. All that while there are many replies to them, so clearly, these comments generate 'interest', whatever it is.
Does it make sense to have wild swings in comment moderation in that case, doesn't it mean that in reality those comments are at least 'interesting' enough to a large number of people?
It looks to me, the real problem with /. is a weird moderation scheme that encourages people to moderate not based on merit of the comment, but instead based on their own biases and it's used to silence opinions.
Wouldn't you think of the children? Those very children, whose future you are selling out by putting all of your current and past expenses on their tab?
Wouldn't you think of the children, those very children that you are leaving with all these hatred around the world because of all the illegal and immoral wars that are you sending children into?
Wouldn't you think of the children, the same children that have no sound economy to look forward to, because you have chased away all of the savings and investment capital and all of the manufacturing and production out of your countries, because you just have to buy everything you, including the biggest governments can with fake money?
Wouldn't you think of those children, whose freedoms you are stealing by creating all these laws that ensure that the children basically end up leaving in prison like conditions, strip searched at every point, fined, jailed, regulated, taxed, etc.?
Wouldn't you think of the children, same ones that will have no knowledge or real education but huge debts, because you are lying to them that they need all that government education while putting them on the government guaranteed (and thus seemingly endless) loan needle?
Wouldn't you think of the children, who won't be able to run their own businesses due to all of the protections you are giving to your preferred monopolies, all of the regulations, laws, taxes, licenses, bail outs, stimulus, etc.etc., everything you do, when you prop up failing corporations you like so much and ensure that nobody can compete with them?
But at least you are making sure that the children don't see those 'offending' pornography images and videos. Of-course that's just a pretence that you are running in order to secure some form of total control over the information on the Internet, the only real outlet of actual data that those very children can use to learn something useful about the world around them.
Correct.
Of-course when a real Statesman appears and starts talking about the real problem, he is marginalised, the power pretends he does not exist and I am sure if he becomes a real threat he would be dealt with swiftly by that power.
Once there is a PRINCIPLE of such a ridiculous idea as copyright and patent, then the length of the term is just a detail up to lengthening at any time.
Copyrights and patents must be abolished altogether.
It doesn't matter how evil a person is, what matters is that the US public is fine with giving away its rights and growing a huge government that then can abuse them, once they have no rights left.
When I say: giving away rights, I mean - allowing the government to overstep the boundaries that are set by the Constitution in the first place, be it printing money, any of the socialist programs (SS, Medicare), starting illegal wars (all wars that are undeclared), bailing out companies, meddling with business in any way, all of the executive power, etc.
Giving away rights because of perceived benefits does only one thing in reality: takes away your freedoms and then you can't stop this, it becomes an avalanche, and then you have Patriot Act, NDAA, extra-judicial killing, etc.
That's what you get with the huge government empire, and when I point out that I would like more freedoms instead in order to be able to get myself a nuclear powered car - this place throws a hissy fit.
No, I am not talking about 'justifying theft' at all. The question was: "who benefits the most?"
My answer is: consumer benefits the most. I am giving an answer without talking about morality etc., whatever. No, it's not moral or just that this got stolen.
Yes, it is true that consumer will benefit the most.
The socialists here will say: bullshit, those who'll make money from this stolen tech will benefit the most, and if they are only talking about relative value that the company gets compared to any one or a small group of consumers, well, they have a point.
However from point of view of the market it's just more competition in the market and when you take into account millions of people who'll be able to buy cheaper AMOLED displays, whatever they are - TVs, phones, computer screens, etc., then you can understand that the real wealth that was created is not money, it's these very screens. It's supply of something that didn't exist before.
This will cause problems to the original developer company (Samsung) in that they will not be able to follow normal market pricing curve, it will be offset to the negative side by some amount, but they will still be in the black, just not as much. Of-course they will probably sue the other companies that will benefit from this theft.
However again: I am always against patents and copyrights, but I am for the trade secrets for reasons similar to this development - the competitors cannot lock anybody out of the market but they are welcome to develop their own competing technologies or they can try and steal, and at the end it is consumer who gains.
And really, given how socialist this place is, shouldn't you be on the side of the consumer at all times, especially when the other side is a big company? Why the double standard this time?