Why would anyone trust their funds to these people?
Good question. The answer is that they have a poor appreciation of economics and a worse appreciation of risk.
Bitcoin itself is not a shitty idea.
We disagree on that point. I think bitcoin is an idiotic solution in search of a problem. The rather narrow problems it purports to solve (money transfer fees, etc) are done by externalizing a great deal of risk and cost. If you really account for all the costs and all the risks it isn't actually cheaper than currencies like the dollar. In reality it is used mostly by those who are either ideologically motivated or find the idea of it romantic or (unfortunately) by those who are engaging in illegal activities of one sort or another. A lot of people are involved too as a get rich quick scheme.
But to say a system that offers frictionless payments is a shitty idea and should not even be attempted is stupid.
Bitcoin is anything but "frictionless". It carries very real and significant costs including opportunity costs, exchange rate risk, security costs, liquidity problems, volatility costs, and more. It is not widely accepted, requires a computer, has essentially no physical payment infrastructure, etc. Any merchant that accepts bitcoin and doesn't charge some fairly hefty fees to use it is being incredibly irresponsible given the risks involved.
One last thing and more of an open comment to people who have bitcoin. "Don't be a dumbass and let Lenny hold your bag of cash for you!" Geez does it even need saying?
Yes it does unfortunately. Many of the people involved with bitcoin are smart but too many are not financially sophisticated and certainly don't seem to appreciate the risks involved.
Why is anyone assuming this is being done by 'criminals'?
Because that is by far the most likely answer. These are almost certainly the equivalent of digital bank robbers. Where there is poorly secured money to be stolen it will be stolen. Furthermore if you steal something you are by definition a criminal even if you are something else as well.
I know that folks involved in bitcoin like to invoke grand government conspiracies (they seem to be a bit paranoid) but the government doesn't have to steal bitcoins. If the government wants to squash bitcoin it will pass some laws and regulations and make it illegal to deal in bitcoins. Why go though the window when you can smash down the door?
You claim, because I want lower taxes, that I want NO taxes. Wrong. I want necessary taxes, minimum waste, minimum government intrusion where it should not intrude.
Great. Define minimum. Define what you consider unnecessary government intrusion. I think you are going to find that to be a relatively difficult exercise. Would you support taxes for research that will will have a long term payback to the economy of several multiples of the amount paid plus expansion of our scientific understanding of the universe? NASA provides that. Is that worth the investment? It's not strictly speaking necessary but it does have a payback.
On the other hand the budget of NASA is a rounding error compared to Medicare and Defense spending so unless you have already addressed those I think you are blowing smoke.
Hey, I would support NASA spending the money, if only for the scientific exercise of figuring this out.
So you don't really want minimum "necessary" taxes? You seem a bit conflicted here.
Microsoft also sells millions of products a year and we hate them too.
Microsoft doesn't get the love Apple does but most people don't actively hate them either. Only folks like those of us who hang out here on slashdot really tend to have a strongly negative opinion of Microsoft. I'm certainly not a fan but I have no illusions that my opinion of them is widely held either.
Granted but MUCH too slowly. I think what they really need to do is collaborate with companies like Apple and Google and Microsoft on some standard interfaces to let the companies that do consumer electronics well (not the car companies) take care of that piece of the puzzle. Right now they provide an aux port and some bluetooth and claim that they have iPod integration. It's pathetic, expensive and becomes obsolete almost immediately. There is no reason I shouldn't be able to send weather or map data to the screen on my car. I should be able to use my music library simply by being in close proximity. Cars should be mobile wifi hotspots and have USB ports to plug in any sort of mobile device for charging AND data communications. Cars should have AC110 ports.
Based on what? Yeah they flubbed the roll out but I've used it since and it mostly works fine. I'm guessing you are one of those people who read all the bad press and presumed that Apple would never fix the problem. Guess what? Over over 30 million people use Apple Maps mostly without problems. Apple Maps is certainly not a joke and anything but "completely useless". Your assertion is mostly without any basis to support it.
2. considering how many people hate Apple, they're losing prospective customers for a $60,000 car for example because of one tiny feature.
Apple sells millions of devices a year and you think people "hate Apple"? Have you actually been to an Apple store lately? They are packed. Nobody buys Apple products because they have to. They are all discretionary purchases and people buy Apple's gear because they... gasp, LIKE the products. Who knew?
Maybe YOU don't like Apple but out here in the real world Apple is wildly popular.
Of all things that matter, Apple (I grudgingly admit) probably has the best chance to solve
Actually after sitting in a Model S, I'd say Tesla is probably furthest along the right track. They seem to be the only car company that has figured out how to update firmware and the 17" screen they use makes a LOT more sense than most of the other systems I've seen. A little 6" screen seems a bit out of date and certainly can't display much. Not saying Tesla has everything perfect but its the most innovative system I've seen. Certainly more interesting than tighter iPhone integration.
The 3 auto makers offering it first are all high-end luxury brands.
Volvo cars aren't exactly priced in the stratosphere. Even their expensive offerings are still FAR cheaper than those from Mercedes and Ferrari. Volvo makes nice cars but they are mostly at the lower end of the luxury segment if you consider them a luxury vehicle at all.
Personally, if I had they money to be driving around a Ferrari, I would already have a really nice custom stereo system in it, which would surely have a dedicated GPS system in it.
A reasonable thing to do but why not have the option of layering on Siri or similar Android services in addition? I'd rather have the consumer electronics stuff handled by a consumer electronics company whenever possible. I have a GPS in my truck but it is woefully out of date, expensive and the graphics pretty much suck. Car companies are REALLY bad at updating firmware and they don't do enough product volume to get costs down to reasonable levels. When possible it makes a lot more sense to use something like a smartphone to handle many of these tasks.
(Again, the wealthy have the means to pay for "concierge" services by phone where they can make requests of a live operator who answers. Why settle for an automated system like Siri?)
Just because you have a bit more cash doesn't mean you want to spend it needlessly. Concierge services are expensive and most people who can afford a nice luxury vehicle didn't get their money by being frivolous with their cash. It's not an either/or proposition either. Personally I'd be more likely to use Siri (even with its deficiencies) than some high priced live service even if I had the money just because it would probably be an occasional use thing with me.
Say I open up a pizzeria in a country where pizza is not popular. I spend a lot of time and money advertising and selling pizza to these people and start to build a successful business. Once it becomes popular there, Pizza Hut builds several franchises there.to capitalize on the newfound market. That's the free rider problem, and it applies to a business absent technological innovation.
You are correct that that is a version of the free rider problem but you are ignoring the key difference. Extending a market for a product that already exists is not the same thing as inventing a completely new product. The mere fact that a second business comes along to capitalize on the market extending actions of the first does not damage the economy as a whole. Some new people get to enjoy pizza but pizza already existed prior to them enjoying the product. If the new pizza company could not protect their new market then it probably wasn't a good idea to develop the market but society isn't worse off.
Here is a better example. Developing a new drug to combat a disease costs many millions of dollars. At the end of the day you have a chemical formula. If you develop that drug your costs are Cost of Development + Cost of Manufacturing + Cost of Distribution. Anyone who copies that drug only has the Cost of Manufacturing + Cost of Distribution. The copier has an immediate and unbeatable cost advantage. That being the case, why would you ever invest the money to develop the drug, knowing that you will get economically crushed in the market place by others undercutting your price? In this case the world never gets the benefit of that new drug because it would be unlikely to be developed. Furthermore because the drug doesn't get developed then no one else can build off of their work to make even better drugs. Substitute drugs for any other innovative and new product that requires a substantial investment to bring to market and the argument is the same. Batteries, semiconductors, driveshafts, automobiles, etc.
I know someone will bring up open source software so let me nip that here. Software is a unique case because it is an intangible product with close to zero marginal cost of manufacturing and, with the internet, distribution as well. Furthermore, its possible to build economically viable businesses without selling the software because software is merely instructions for a machine and it is covered by copyright. Important to be sure but you can build software with the intent to bring in revenue elsewhere. That's not generally possible with tangible products like cars or semiconductors - the sort that you generally get a patent for. With tangible products you need to recover the revenue more or less directly and the cost of manufacturing and distribution are far more substantial in those cases. We really should not be allowing patents for software because it really screws the system up. You don't need patents to combat the free rider problem with software. Copyright serves this purpose well enough.
The ordinary undertaking of ordinary engineers do not need external incentives. They would make those innovations without the patent incentive.
Baloney. You've fallen into the fallacy (common here on slashdot) that engineers would do their work without any external incentives which is demonstrably nonsense in most cases. They need salaries at a minimum which obviously is an external incentive. Certainly there would be some level of advancement but it would be slower because of the economic problems. Engineering is inseparable from economics and if you believe otherwise you are deluded. You also have danced around the question of how you would solve the free rider problem which is very real and there is a huge body of research regarding its effects on economies. If you have an idea that is better than patents (and copyright for written works) to solve this problem then I'm all ears but any claim that we would be in the same place without some tool to combat the free rider problem is absurd.
If any engineer in the fields could come up with the same solution in 6 hours, then it's obvious.
That is nonsense because you are applying a retrospective view of the problem. If it was so easy to accomplish and so obvious then why wasn't it done previously? The value of an insight has NOTHING to do with how long it takes to complete. The value of an insight has to do with the socio-economic value that can be gained from the invention. In fact many of the greatest insights are the ones where we immediately think "of course it works like that" even though no one did previously.
Every invention is a discovery. However not every discovery is an invention. If you invent something you are discovering a configuration of the world around us. You are rearranging atoms into some useful form but the possibility for that form existed before you invented it. An invention is merely a pragmatically useful subset of discovery. Invention has as much to do with economics as it does physics.
Calling them the "finest minds" seems a bit of hyperbole, they made great discoveries, but you don't need the finest minds to do what they did
And yet no one else did do what they did before them. Why is that? Why did no one figure out relativity before Einstein? Just because you understand it now does not mean that it is obvious then. You're looking at things retrospectively. Sure, it is reasonable to suppose that sooner or later someone else would have come up with the same theories but the fact remains that Newton and Leibniz did it first. You and I didn't come up with it independently despite knowledge of calculus now being commonplace. We had to be taught calculus by someone else who had already been taught calculus. Looking at things retrospectively makes them seem more obvious than they really are.
Oh, and if you think Newton wasn't one of the smartest men in history, you really need to look more closely at what he did. It's no exaggeration to say he greatly advanced human knowledge and laid key parts of the foundation upon which all modern science and engineering rests. The fact that he pursued some dead ends doesn't devalue the things he was right about. If you can find me anyone who wasn't wrong about some things I'll go dive headfirst into the nearest snowbank.
OK. So let's say a chef starts his or her own restaurant. MegaCorp sees the menu, likes it, and uses its massive financial and market power to create their own version which is better, faster and tastier. MegaCorp gets a 3% rise in stock prices, the chef gets nothing. Explain the difference to me?
What you are describing is a trade secret which is protected to a degree but if the secret is discovered then it is free for anyone to use. That is a tactical choice by the chef. If it was truly innovative in some way then the chef could seek a patent and there would be nothing wrong with that. There are patents on food products out there. If the chef did not elect to do that or if his innovation was something like "add more salt" then perhaps it wasn't really so innovative after all. The purpose of patents is not to prohibit competition. The purpose of patents is to combat the free rider problem.
Explain why inventors get monopoly protections from competition and other entrepreneurs and workers don't?
The free rider problem demonstrably does not prohibit people from starting businesses or continuing ones that already exist. My company makes wire harnesses and there are plenty of companies out there that do that too. If we invent some clever machine that gives us an advantage, then we might consider applying for a patent. The free rider problem demonstrably damages the ability and incentive to create new and innovative ideas when they can be freely copied by others who did not have to pay for their development.
I would liken this to a cook at home with a secret recipe which they don't even serve to guests. The resulting "suffering" of society does not bother me.
It should bother you. Neither science nor engineering can work effectively without disclosure and sharing of ideas. But economics plays an important role and there are lots of important things that would never be developed if there was nothing in place to combat the free rider problem. The patent system is imperfect and needs reform badly but fundamentally the idea of it is sound and it combats a serious barrier to human development in spite of its flaws.
Patents are intended to promote the disclosure of ideas. All well and good, but maybe an automatic monopoly isn't necesarily the best way to accomplish either of those things.
The primary purpose of patents is to combat the free rider problem. Disclosure of the ideas is arguably a second order effect here. It's valuable in the long run to let people build off the work of others and to do this you need to disclose how things work and prevent people from reinventing the wheel so to speak. We give a temporary monopoly in exchange for them disclosing the idea but that is the mechanics of the solution, not the problem they are actually trying to solve. I don't have a problem with your argument that disclosure/monopoly is the best way to solve the problem. It might not be the best way, but on the other hand I haven't heard any alternatives that are better aside from some badly needed refinements to the current system.
Keep in mind that the ones who add to our knowledge of the world are called scientists, not inventors.
Scientists figure out the laws by which the world operates but they do not figure out how to actually apply that knowledge to real world problems. Understanding F=MA is useless by itself. Engineers unquestionably add to our knowledge of the world. Science and engineering are linked at the hip and you cannot have one without the other. Scientists are NOT the only ones who add to our knowledge of the world.
An averagely skilled engineer, faced with the same problem could solve the problem in under the time it takes to do a full patent search, and apply for the patent including all the time to write the patent and get it through all the steps - patents are not actually fostering innovation at all.
You are basically implying that an engineer of average skill is unable to develop anything innovative. I fundamentally disagree with your premise. Length of time it takes to solve a problem has little to do with the level of innovation involved. Some problems take longer to solve than others but it does not automatically follow that those are more difficult problems. Many extremely valuable insights do not require years of effort to develop into something useful. Conversely, many insights that do require years of effort ultimately aren't all that valuable. Time is a poor proxy for difficulty.
I think independent invention should be proof of obviousness.
Really? Newton and Leibniz independently developed calculus. Are you seriously going to claim that was proof of obviousness? Two of the finest minds humanity has ever had, came to the same ideas roughly concurrently but that does not remotely imply that it was obvious to anyone with "ordinary skill in the art". You have to examine what the state of skill in the art is before you can come to any conclusions about what is obvious to most.
If you have 50%+1 shares you can put in place a board of directors which you can then coerce into firing him. But you can't fire him directly. It's how the process works.
If you have 50%+1 of the voting shares, you don't have to coerce anyone. You can essentially hire and fire at will so long as you aren't breaking any laws by doing so. The existence of a board is merely a formality at that point and the majority shareholder(s) can make themselves the board making it a distinction without a difference. You might have to deal with some shareholder lawsuits or other nuisance issues but you'll get your way in the end.
Not really, no. Most of the time the direct actions stockholders can vote for are very strictly limited by the articles of incorporation.
It would be a VERY unusual articles of incorporation that would limit the ability of 50%+1 of the voting shareholders to make major changes. I'm fully familiar with poison pills and other tactics but once you own over half the company, you can almost always get whatever you want. They can replace the board, amend the articles of incorporation, etc. Sometimes the shareholders have to go through some inconvenient by-laws and other legal hoops but sooner or later they will get their way. Most of the activist shareholder and anti-takeover provisions are there to guard against new shareholders taking over, not the ones that already have shares.
Especially in the United Kingdom and also in the rest of (developed) Europe executives can and will go to jail for wrongdoings on their watch.
They can in the US too if their actions were criminal and can be proved to be so. The corporate veil can be pierced but it protects them from liability from things that are beyond their control.
Gaaaaa! No! You did so well up to that point. The size of the company has nothing to do with it.
It has EVERYTHING to do with it when it comes to debt. Doesn't matter if it is an LLC or a C-Corp. If you are small you'll be asked for a personal guarantee of any debt. If you are large you won't. The form of incorporation has nothing whatsoever to do with this. The bank doesn't care. They only care about the level of risk and the assets backing their loan.
sole proprietorship, LLC/LLP and S corporations have individual liability to owners/shareholders. C-corps have boards and share holders with no individual liability.
You are incorrect. ANY S or C corporation or LLC/LLP will have a corporate veil. That is the entire point of them. Don't take my word for it, go check. The difference between those forms of company has to do primarily with how taxes are handled but the corporate veil is still there. You can have an S-Corp with just one owner and they will NOT have unlimited personal liability. Sole proprietorships and simple partnerships (not LLPs) do have personal liability but they are not technically corporations. I'm an accountant and I've started 5 companies. I know this stuff more than passingly well.
The stockholders have no power to fire him. He reports to the board of directors.
The stockholders DO have the power to fire him, although their actual ability to do so is rather limited. If 50%+1 of the shareholders agree on anything they can (generally) force the company to do anything that is legal. This is deeply unlikely to happen but it is possible. If 50%+1 or more shareholders get together, they can do almost whatever they want whether or not the board agrees with it.
Which is wrong. The executives and board need to be legally liable.
Then you will not have a corporation. The ENTIRE point of a corporation is to separate personal liability from ownership. No one in their right mind would agree to accept unlimited personal liability for the actions of an entire company, most of which they do not control. Make the executives and board liable for all actions and corporations will cease to exist which is a Very Bad Thing.
shareholders need to be financially liable based on the percentage of stock held.
They are financially at risk. If the company goes belly up, the shareholders are last in line to get paid. They carry the most risk. Bondholders are typically first in line to get paid from any bankruptcy or liquidation.
They most assuredly do own the company. That is precisely how stock works. The ENTIRE point of corporate stock is to divorce the liability of the company from the ownership. It allows companies to take risks that would otherwise be impossible. (And before you jump in with some snarky response, yes that separation of liability from ownership is a Good Thing - companies would not exist without it) Common stock holders however are last in line to get paid if the company goes belly up. Debt holders typically are first in line.
If they owned the company, they would be liable for any debt if the company goes bankrupt.
Wrong. The company is a separate entity. Except for very small companies there is NEVER a personal guarantee of any debt. The debt is either unsecured or is secured by the assets of the company including all cash flows and receivables, tangible and intangible assets. In the event of a liquidation or bankruptcy, the common stockholders are last in line to recover any money from those assets so they carry the most risk.
I bow to your superior knowledge of language dynamics. Shall I tell my university lecturers that they were all wrong then?
If they are claiming that this law is a good idea then go ahead and tell them they are idiots.
. Before the language laws, people were shifting to English, because there was the expectation and/or fear of not being understood.
Languages change and that is not a bad thing. So what if people were choosing to shift to English? If they were it was because that made sense for their situation. I sure as hell don't want anyone legislating what language I choose to communicate in. If that happened to be French then fine but the government has NO business mandating that for private businesses or individuals.
By comparison, you have the minority regional languages of France, where only French is official. Without legal protection, the loss of expectation of language means even people that are perfectly competent in speaking the local language tend to use the majority language with each other.
Again, so what? If that is what people choose to do then the government should let them do it.
Quebec's language policy is working very well, and if you think they look stupid for doing it, well, they think you're pretty damned arrogant for deriding them for refusing to be like you.
"Working fine"? Says who? Cultural snobs in Quebec? I don't give a shit if they want to be like me or not. What offends me is that they think they should dictate how their own people should be allowed to communicate. If keeping French is such a cultural advantage then it needs no protection. If it isn't then let it go and move on.
Slashdot Mirror
Why would anyone trust their funds to these people?
Good question. The answer is that they have a poor appreciation of economics and a worse appreciation of risk.
Bitcoin itself is not a shitty idea.
We disagree on that point. I think bitcoin is an idiotic solution in search of a problem. The rather narrow problems it purports to solve (money transfer fees, etc) are done by externalizing a great deal of risk and cost. If you really account for all the costs and all the risks it isn't actually cheaper than currencies like the dollar. In reality it is used mostly by those who are either ideologically motivated or find the idea of it romantic or (unfortunately) by those who are engaging in illegal activities of one sort or another. A lot of people are involved too as a get rich quick scheme.
But to say a system that offers frictionless payments is a shitty idea and should not even be attempted is stupid.
Bitcoin is anything but "frictionless". It carries very real and significant costs including opportunity costs, exchange rate risk, security costs, liquidity problems, volatility costs, and more. It is not widely accepted, requires a computer, has essentially no physical payment infrastructure, etc. Any merchant that accepts bitcoin and doesn't charge some fairly hefty fees to use it is being incredibly irresponsible given the risks involved.
One last thing and more of an open comment to people who have bitcoin. "Don't be a dumbass and let Lenny hold your bag of cash for you!" Geez does it even need saying?
Yes it does unfortunately. Many of the people involved with bitcoin are smart but too many are not financially sophisticated and certainly don't seem to appreciate the risks involved.
Why is anyone assuming this is being done by 'criminals'?
Because that is by far the most likely answer. These are almost certainly the equivalent of digital bank robbers. Where there is poorly secured money to be stolen it will be stolen. Furthermore if you steal something you are by definition a criminal even if you are something else as well.
I know that folks involved in bitcoin like to invoke grand government conspiracies (they seem to be a bit paranoid) but the government doesn't have to steal bitcoins. If the government wants to squash bitcoin it will pass some laws and regulations and make it illegal to deal in bitcoins. Why go though the window when you can smash down the door?
You claim, because I want lower taxes, that I want NO taxes. Wrong. I want necessary taxes, minimum waste, minimum government intrusion where it should not intrude.
Great. Define minimum. Define what you consider unnecessary government intrusion. I think you are going to find that to be a relatively difficult exercise. Would you support taxes for research that will will have a long term payback to the economy of several multiples of the amount paid plus expansion of our scientific understanding of the universe? NASA provides that. Is that worth the investment? It's not strictly speaking necessary but it does have a payback.
On the other hand the budget of NASA is a rounding error compared to Medicare and Defense spending so unless you have already addressed those I think you are blowing smoke.
Hey, I would support NASA spending the money, if only for the scientific exercise of figuring this out.
So you don't really want minimum "necessary" taxes? You seem a bit conflicted here.
Microsoft also sells millions of products a year and we hate them too.
Microsoft doesn't get the love Apple does but most people don't actively hate them either. Only folks like those of us who hang out here on slashdot really tend to have a strongly negative opinion of Microsoft. I'm certainly not a fan but I have no illusions that my opinion of them is widely held either.
Manufacturers are slowly getting better.
Granted but MUCH too slowly. I think what they really need to do is collaborate with companies like Apple and Google and Microsoft on some standard interfaces to let the companies that do consumer electronics well (not the car companies) take care of that piece of the puzzle. Right now they provide an aux port and some bluetooth and claim that they have iPod integration. It's pathetic, expensive and becomes obsolete almost immediately. There is no reason I shouldn't be able to send weather or map data to the screen on my car. I should be able to use my music library simply by being in close proximity. Cars should be mobile wifi hotspots and have USB ports to plug in any sort of mobile device for charging AND data communications. Cars should have AC110 ports.
1. Apple maps is a joke and completely useless
Based on what? Yeah they flubbed the roll out but I've used it since and it mostly works fine. I'm guessing you are one of those people who read all the bad press and presumed that Apple would never fix the problem. Guess what? Over over 30 million people use Apple Maps mostly without problems. Apple Maps is certainly not a joke and anything but "completely useless". Your assertion is mostly without any basis to support it.
2. considering how many people hate Apple, they're losing prospective customers for a $60,000 car for example because of one tiny feature.
Apple sells millions of devices a year and you think people "hate Apple"? Have you actually been to an Apple store lately? They are packed. Nobody buys Apple products because they have to. They are all discretionary purchases and people buy Apple's gear because they... gasp, LIKE the products. Who knew?
Maybe YOU don't like Apple but out here in the real world Apple is wildly popular.
Of all things that matter, Apple (I grudgingly admit) probably has the best chance to solve
Actually after sitting in a Model S, I'd say Tesla is probably furthest along the right track. They seem to be the only car company that has figured out how to update firmware and the 17" screen they use makes a LOT more sense than most of the other systems I've seen. A little 6" screen seems a bit out of date and certainly can't display much. Not saying Tesla has everything perfect but its the most innovative system I've seen. Certainly more interesting than tighter iPhone integration.
The 3 auto makers offering it first are all high-end luxury brands.
Volvo cars aren't exactly priced in the stratosphere. Even their expensive offerings are still FAR cheaper than those from Mercedes and Ferrari. Volvo makes nice cars but they are mostly at the lower end of the luxury segment if you consider them a luxury vehicle at all.
Personally, if I had they money to be driving around a Ferrari, I would already have a really nice custom stereo system in it, which would surely have a dedicated GPS system in it.
A reasonable thing to do but why not have the option of layering on Siri or similar Android services in addition? I'd rather have the consumer electronics stuff handled by a consumer electronics company whenever possible. I have a GPS in my truck but it is woefully out of date, expensive and the graphics pretty much suck. Car companies are REALLY bad at updating firmware and they don't do enough product volume to get costs down to reasonable levels. When possible it makes a lot more sense to use something like a smartphone to handle many of these tasks.
(Again, the wealthy have the means to pay for "concierge" services by phone where they can make requests of a live operator who answers. Why settle for an automated system like Siri?)
Just because you have a bit more cash doesn't mean you want to spend it needlessly. Concierge services are expensive and most people who can afford a nice luxury vehicle didn't get their money by being frivolous with their cash. It's not an either/or proposition either. Personally I'd be more likely to use Siri (even with its deficiencies) than some high priced live service even if I had the money just because it would probably be an occasional use thing with me.
I'm just waiting for Clippy to pop up and say "I see you're having an accident. Would you like me to play a Funeral Dirge?"
On an Apple product? Seems unlikely... Perhaps on some other product.
Say I open up a pizzeria in a country where pizza is not popular. I spend a lot of time and money advertising and selling pizza to these people and start to build a successful business. Once it becomes popular there, Pizza Hut builds several franchises there.to capitalize on the newfound market. That's the free rider problem, and it applies to a business absent technological innovation.
You are correct that that is a version of the free rider problem but you are ignoring the key difference. Extending a market for a product that already exists is not the same thing as inventing a completely new product. The mere fact that a second business comes along to capitalize on the market extending actions of the first does not damage the economy as a whole. Some new people get to enjoy pizza but pizza already existed prior to them enjoying the product. If the new pizza company could not protect their new market then it probably wasn't a good idea to develop the market but society isn't worse off.
Here is a better example. Developing a new drug to combat a disease costs many millions of dollars. At the end of the day you have a chemical formula. If you develop that drug your costs are Cost of Development + Cost of Manufacturing + Cost of Distribution. Anyone who copies that drug only has the Cost of Manufacturing + Cost of Distribution. The copier has an immediate and unbeatable cost advantage. That being the case, why would you ever invest the money to develop the drug, knowing that you will get economically crushed in the market place by others undercutting your price? In this case the world never gets the benefit of that new drug because it would be unlikely to be developed. Furthermore because the drug doesn't get developed then no one else can build off of their work to make even better drugs. Substitute drugs for any other innovative and new product that requires a substantial investment to bring to market and the argument is the same. Batteries, semiconductors, driveshafts, automobiles, etc.
I know someone will bring up open source software so let me nip that here. Software is a unique case because it is an intangible product with close to zero marginal cost of manufacturing and, with the internet, distribution as well. Furthermore, its possible to build economically viable businesses without selling the software because software is merely instructions for a machine and it is covered by copyright. Important to be sure but you can build software with the intent to bring in revenue elsewhere. That's not generally possible with tangible products like cars or semiconductors - the sort that you generally get a patent for. With tangible products you need to recover the revenue more or less directly and the cost of manufacturing and distribution are far more substantial in those cases. We really should not be allowing patents for software because it really screws the system up. You don't need patents to combat the free rider problem with software. Copyright serves this purpose well enough.
The ordinary undertaking of ordinary engineers do not need external incentives. They would make those innovations without the patent incentive.
Baloney. You've fallen into the fallacy (common here on slashdot) that engineers would do their work without any external incentives which is demonstrably nonsense in most cases. They need salaries at a minimum which obviously is an external incentive. Certainly there would be some level of advancement but it would be slower because of the economic problems. Engineering is inseparable from economics and if you believe otherwise you are deluded. You also have danced around the question of how you would solve the free rider problem which is very real and there is a huge body of research regarding its effects on economies. If you have an idea that is better than patents (and copyright for written works) to solve this problem then I'm all ears but any claim that we would be in the same place without some tool to combat the free rider problem is absurd.
If any engineer in the fields could come up with the same solution in 6 hours, then it's obvious.
That is nonsense because you are applying a retrospective view of the problem. If it was so easy to accomplish and so obvious then why wasn't it done previously? The value of an insight has NOTHING to do with how long it takes to complete. The value of an insight has to do with the socio-economic value that can be gained from the invention. In fact many of the greatest insights are the ones where we immediately think "of course it works like that" even though no one did previously.
Calculus isn't an invention, it's a discovery.
Every invention is a discovery. However not every discovery is an invention. If you invent something you are discovering a configuration of the world around us. You are rearranging atoms into some useful form but the possibility for that form existed before you invented it. An invention is merely a pragmatically useful subset of discovery. Invention has as much to do with economics as it does physics.
Calling them the "finest minds" seems a bit of hyperbole, they made great discoveries, but you don't need the finest minds to do what they did
And yet no one else did do what they did before them. Why is that? Why did no one figure out relativity before Einstein? Just because you understand it now does not mean that it is obvious then. You're looking at things retrospectively. Sure, it is reasonable to suppose that sooner or later someone else would have come up with the same theories but the fact remains that Newton and Leibniz did it first. You and I didn't come up with it independently despite knowledge of calculus now being commonplace. We had to be taught calculus by someone else who had already been taught calculus. Looking at things retrospectively makes them seem more obvious than they really are.
Oh, and if you think Newton wasn't one of the smartest men in history, you really need to look more closely at what he did. It's no exaggeration to say he greatly advanced human knowledge and laid key parts of the foundation upon which all modern science and engineering rests. The fact that he pursued some dead ends doesn't devalue the things he was right about. If you can find me anyone who wasn't wrong about some things I'll go dive headfirst into the nearest snowbank.
OK. So let's say a chef starts his or her own restaurant. MegaCorp sees the menu, likes it, and uses its massive financial and market power to create their own version which is better, faster and tastier. MegaCorp gets a 3% rise in stock prices, the chef gets nothing. Explain the difference to me?
What you are describing is a trade secret which is protected to a degree but if the secret is discovered then it is free for anyone to use. That is a tactical choice by the chef. If it was truly innovative in some way then the chef could seek a patent and there would be nothing wrong with that. There are patents on food products out there. If the chef did not elect to do that or if his innovation was something like "add more salt" then perhaps it wasn't really so innovative after all. The purpose of patents is not to prohibit competition. The purpose of patents is to combat the free rider problem.
Explain why inventors get monopoly protections from competition and other entrepreneurs and workers don't?
The free rider problem demonstrably does not prohibit people from starting businesses or continuing ones that already exist. My company makes wire harnesses and there are plenty of companies out there that do that too. If we invent some clever machine that gives us an advantage, then we might consider applying for a patent. The free rider problem demonstrably damages the ability and incentive to create new and innovative ideas when they can be freely copied by others who did not have to pay for their development.
I would liken this to a cook at home with a secret recipe which they don't even serve to guests. The resulting "suffering" of society does not bother me.
It should bother you. Neither science nor engineering can work effectively without disclosure and sharing of ideas. But economics plays an important role and there are lots of important things that would never be developed if there was nothing in place to combat the free rider problem. The patent system is imperfect and needs reform badly but fundamentally the idea of it is sound and it combats a serious barrier to human development in spite of its flaws.
Patents are intended to promote the disclosure of ideas. All well and good, but maybe an automatic monopoly isn't necesarily the best way to accomplish either of those things.
The primary purpose of patents is to combat the free rider problem. Disclosure of the ideas is arguably a second order effect here. It's valuable in the long run to let people build off the work of others and to do this you need to disclose how things work and prevent people from reinventing the wheel so to speak. We give a temporary monopoly in exchange for them disclosing the idea but that is the mechanics of the solution, not the problem they are actually trying to solve. I don't have a problem with your argument that disclosure/monopoly is the best way to solve the problem. It might not be the best way, but on the other hand I haven't heard any alternatives that are better aside from some badly needed refinements to the current system.
Keep in mind that the ones who add to our knowledge of the world are called scientists, not inventors.
Scientists figure out the laws by which the world operates but they do not figure out how to actually apply that knowledge to real world problems. Understanding F=MA is useless by itself. Engineers unquestionably add to our knowledge of the world. Science and engineering are linked at the hip and you cannot have one without the other. Scientists are NOT the only ones who add to our knowledge of the world.
An averagely skilled engineer, faced with the same problem could solve the problem in under the time it takes to do a full patent search, and apply for the patent including all the time to write the patent and get it through all the steps - patents are not actually fostering innovation at all.
You are basically implying that an engineer of average skill is unable to develop anything innovative. I fundamentally disagree with your premise. Length of time it takes to solve a problem has little to do with the level of innovation involved. Some problems take longer to solve than others but it does not automatically follow that those are more difficult problems. Many extremely valuable insights do not require years of effort to develop into something useful. Conversely, many insights that do require years of effort ultimately aren't all that valuable. Time is a poor proxy for difficulty.
I think independent invention should be proof of obviousness.
Really? Newton and Leibniz independently developed calculus. Are you seriously going to claim that was proof of obviousness? Two of the finest minds humanity has ever had, came to the same ideas roughly concurrently but that does not remotely imply that it was obvious to anyone with "ordinary skill in the art". You have to examine what the state of skill in the art is before you can come to any conclusions about what is obvious to most.
If you have 50%+1 shares you can put in place a board of directors which you can then coerce into firing him. But you can't fire him directly. It's how the process works.
If you have 50%+1 of the voting shares, you don't have to coerce anyone. You can essentially hire and fire at will so long as you aren't breaking any laws by doing so. The existence of a board is merely a formality at that point and the majority shareholder(s) can make themselves the board making it a distinction without a difference. You might have to deal with some shareholder lawsuits or other nuisance issues but you'll get your way in the end.
Not really, no. Most of the time the direct actions stockholders can vote for are very strictly limited by the articles of incorporation.
It would be a VERY unusual articles of incorporation that would limit the ability of 50%+1 of the voting shareholders to make major changes. I'm fully familiar with poison pills and other tactics but once you own over half the company, you can almost always get whatever you want. They can replace the board, amend the articles of incorporation, etc. Sometimes the shareholders have to go through some inconvenient by-laws and other legal hoops but sooner or later they will get their way. Most of the activist shareholder and anti-takeover provisions are there to guard against new shareholders taking over, not the ones that already have shares.
Especially in the United Kingdom and also in the rest of (developed) Europe executives can and will go to jail for wrongdoings on their watch.
They can in the US too if their actions were criminal and can be proved to be so. The corporate veil can be pierced but it protects them from liability from things that are beyond their control.
Gaaaaa! No! You did so well up to that point. The size of the company has nothing to do with it.
It has EVERYTHING to do with it when it comes to debt. Doesn't matter if it is an LLC or a C-Corp. If you are small you'll be asked for a personal guarantee of any debt. If you are large you won't. The form of incorporation has nothing whatsoever to do with this. The bank doesn't care. They only care about the level of risk and the assets backing their loan.
sole proprietorship, LLC/LLP and S corporations have individual liability to owners/shareholders. C-corps have boards and share holders with no individual liability.
You are incorrect. ANY S or C corporation or LLC/LLP will have a corporate veil. That is the entire point of them. Don't take my word for it, go check. The difference between those forms of company has to do primarily with how taxes are handled but the corporate veil is still there. You can have an S-Corp with just one owner and they will NOT have unlimited personal liability. Sole proprietorships and simple partnerships (not LLPs) do have personal liability but they are not technically corporations. I'm an accountant and I've started 5 companies. I know this stuff more than passingly well.
The stockholders have no power to fire him. He reports to the board of directors.
The stockholders DO have the power to fire him, although their actual ability to do so is rather limited. If 50%+1 of the shareholders agree on anything they can (generally) force the company to do anything that is legal. This is deeply unlikely to happen but it is possible. If 50%+1 or more shareholders get together, they can do almost whatever they want whether or not the board agrees with it.
Which is wrong. The executives and board need to be legally liable.
Then you will not have a corporation. The ENTIRE point of a corporation is to separate personal liability from ownership. No one in their right mind would agree to accept unlimited personal liability for the actions of an entire company, most of which they do not control. Make the executives and board liable for all actions and corporations will cease to exist which is a Very Bad Thing.
shareholders need to be financially liable based on the percentage of stock held.
They are financially at risk. If the company goes belly up, the shareholders are last in line to get paid. They carry the most risk. Bondholders are typically first in line to get paid from any bankruptcy or liquidation.
Stock holders don't own the company.
They most assuredly do own the company. That is precisely how stock works. The ENTIRE point of corporate stock is to divorce the liability of the company from the ownership. It allows companies to take risks that would otherwise be impossible. (And before you jump in with some snarky response, yes that separation of liability from ownership is a Good Thing - companies would not exist without it) Common stock holders however are last in line to get paid if the company goes belly up. Debt holders typically are first in line.
If they owned the company, they would be liable for any debt if the company goes bankrupt.
Wrong. The company is a separate entity. Except for very small companies there is NEVER a personal guarantee of any debt. The debt is either unsecured or is secured by the assets of the company including all cash flows and receivables, tangible and intangible assets. In the event of a liquidation or bankruptcy, the common stockholders are last in line to recover any money from those assets so they carry the most risk.
It was not the language that asked for itself to be defended, it was the people that asked for it to be defended.
SOME people. I guarantee you that this wasn't unanimous, so you are trampling some people's rights for others opinions.
I bow to your superior knowledge of language dynamics. Shall I tell my university lecturers that they were all wrong then?
If they are claiming that this law is a good idea then go ahead and tell them they are idiots.
. Before the language laws, people were shifting to English, because there was the expectation and/or fear of not being understood.
Languages change and that is not a bad thing. So what if people were choosing to shift to English? If they were it was because that made sense for their situation. I sure as hell don't want anyone legislating what language I choose to communicate in. If that happened to be French then fine but the government has NO business mandating that for private businesses or individuals.
By comparison, you have the minority regional languages of France, where only French is official. Without legal protection, the loss of expectation of language means even people that are perfectly competent in speaking the local language tend to use the majority language with each other.
Again, so what? If that is what people choose to do then the government should let them do it.
Quebec's language policy is working very well, and if you think they look stupid for doing it, well, they think you're pretty damned arrogant for deriding them for refusing to be like you.
"Working fine"? Says who? Cultural snobs in Quebec? I don't give a shit if they want to be like me or not. What offends me is that they think they should dictate how their own people should be allowed to communicate. If keeping French is such a cultural advantage then it needs no protection. If it isn't then let it go and move on.