Well, they did actively lobby against them, and those rules did nothing that would have prevented competition. In fact, all models that have real competition are those with even more regulation, including leasing requirements.
As pointed out, there are more dangerous jobs than being a cop. Furthermore, even within the threats cops face, vehicular accidents kill considerably more cops than bullets do.
Oh, please, the trade secret bit is a garbage post-hoc justification. If you wanted to rid society of the social ills of trade secrets, you would just get rid of the existing protections for them, not provide a system that still controls the usage of the knowledge, with zero incentive to patent anything that could reasonably be kept a trade secret for 20+ years.
As for the rest, progress happens faster when there are a) no patents in a field, or b) after key patents have expired. Patents are legal monopolies, and if they weren't a ridiculous tool, you'd see them in places other than Mallinckrodt. But instead, the practice of a legal monopoly has been rightfully carved out of every single aspect of modern economics except for patents, copyright, and cocaine.
Yeah, the worst Dems are in the safest districts, as is true for the GOP. If you don't actually have contested elections, you basically have no responsibility.
If a competitor simply reverse engineers it and rewrites it, copying all of your ideas but not your specific variable names, then they are not infringing your copyright.
Yeah, in economics, that's what is known as "competition," and it's generally regarded as a good thing. Now, those in business generally prefer to not have competition, but it actually does often result in higher profits, because they have genuine motivation to streamline and improve.
I believe significant improvements on an existing patent are perfectly legal, though IANAL and could quite possibly be wrong.
You can patent an improvement to an existing, patented invention. However, if you are still using the tech described in the initial patent, you can't produce it without getting a license. So, for example, we have Edison,Swan, and the modern light bulb. Swan had a decent vacuum. Edison had a decent filament. Without cooperating, neither was able to manufacture a decent light bulb. So, they formed a cartel, causing roadblocks for anyone who wanted to compete with them, often buying them up for nothing (since they weren't in a position to actually compete), and using that patent to maintain the cartel. THAT is how inventors are stifled.
You missed the quotations part, which didn't indicate that it was a logical conclusion, just a facile one. The exact same argument can be said for patents. They only make sense if you know nothing about them except for the standard justification
Let's put it more clearly. The number of software patents prior to the CAFC opening the floodgates was a rounding error. Microsoft was already violating anti-trust law by the time that happened, and they had less than 12 patents, IIRC (and I think about 2 of them were software patents proper). So, practically speaking, you couldn't get patents on software until the 90s.
Okay, let me put it more bluntly. If you think Comcast is going to do anything that 1) won't make them money or 2) they are required by law to do, then you are gullible beyond gullible. the appropriate headline would be "Comcast's claims about investment due to NN repeal and Tax Cuts is clearly absolutely bullshit to anybody who knows anything about anything." But that kind of headline doesn't generally sit well with advertisers.
It's not a fallacy (and you didn't even mention a specific one). Copyright and patents are crude economic tools that have no place in modern economies. They do not work, have never worked, and never will work. Where competition exists, it exists DESPITE copyright and patents, not because of it.
Legal monopolies were a common tool prior to democracy and capitalism, but were correctly recognized as generally harmful in the 17th and 18th centuries. That's why, outside of copyright and patents, we only have a handful of legal monopolies, like the Mallinckrodt monopoly on cocaine.
Because, believe it or not, legal monopolies like patents actually HURT competition, which is where innovation actually comes from. One clue might be that the word MONOPOLY is a descriptor, and is the literally the opposite of competition.
Oh, I'm sorry, I didn't realize that you suffered from such enormous delusions that you actually think that "homo economicus" exists instead of emotional bald apes in suits.
How the hell did you jump from "stop the most blatant corruption" to "gave society everything they wanted with zero regard for how much it cost to provide those benefits?" I'm talking about the stuff that has the lowest cost-to-benefit ratio being the rational thing to cut.
No, rational thinking would lead you to cut the military budget and corporate subsidies, since they have far less utility to society. All that's needed to maintain Social Security's stability is to raise the cap, making it less of a regressive tax. The reason Republicans and Centrist Dems want to cut or "reform" Social Security is to cover for the money they've wasted elsewhere.
Yeah, but screwing over other people to get on top plays out more often. The way more empathetic cultures handle that is that the EXECUTIVES take pay cuts, but even thinking that will get you thrown out of a boardroom.
No, I'm speaking psychologically, not morally. CEOs, especially at the biggest companies, have much higher concentrations of sociopathy than the general public. It's a neurology that has many advantages, but also plenty of disadvantages. However, because politics tends to attract a similar level of sociopathy, the immediate effects of those disadvantages can be deferred.
The vast majority of the security problems seem to be with Bitcoin exchanges, who generally do a poor job. Bitcoin is technically quite secure, but it will always be vulnerable to social engineering.
Slashdot Mirror
If the federal budgets that go to Microsoft were spend on FOSS development, we'd be considerably better off.
Well, they did actively lobby against them, and those rules did nothing that would have prevented competition. In fact, all models that have real competition are those with even more regulation, including leasing requirements.
As pointed out, there are more dangerous jobs than being a cop. Furthermore, even within the threats cops face, vehicular accidents kill considerably more cops than bullets do.
There are two main factors to weigh here, IMO.
The first is that a lot of vital yet unsexy projects have inadequate funding and testing. Funding can help mitigate problems stemming from that.
The second factor is sysadmins being incompetent or not being given the tools, knowledge, and power to actually fix problems. Funding can't help that.
Yeah, those people signed off on it, and are also to blame. But I'm pretty sure the bad idea originated from Apple, and they are to blame for that.
Oh, please, the trade secret bit is a garbage post-hoc justification. If you wanted to rid society of the social ills of trade secrets, you would just get rid of the existing protections for them, not provide a system that still controls the usage of the knowledge, with zero incentive to patent anything that could reasonably be kept a trade secret for 20+ years.
As for the rest, progress happens faster when there are a) no patents in a field, or b) after key patents have expired. Patents are legal monopolies, and if they weren't a ridiculous tool, you'd see them in places other than Mallinckrodt. But instead, the practice of a legal monopoly has been rightfully carved out of every single aspect of modern economics except for patents, copyright, and cocaine.
Yeah, the worst Dems are in the safest districts, as is true for the GOP. If you don't actually have contested elections, you basically have no responsibility.
The building design was pretty clearly intended to resemble a MacBook lid, and there's around a 0% chance that it was a coincidence.
Patents are anti-competitive behavior in and of themselves.
Yeah, in economics, that's what is known as "competition," and it's generally regarded as a good thing. Now, those in business generally prefer to not have competition, but it actually does often result in higher profits, because they have genuine motivation to streamline and improve.
You can patent an improvement to an existing, patented invention. However, if you are still using the tech described in the initial patent, you can't produce it without getting a license. So, for example, we have Edison,Swan, and the modern light bulb. Swan had a decent vacuum. Edison had a decent filament. Without cooperating, neither was able to manufacture a decent light bulb. So, they formed a cartel, causing roadblocks for anyone who wanted to compete with them, often buying them up for nothing (since they weren't in a position to actually compete), and using that patent to maintain the cartel. THAT is how inventors are stifled.
You missed the quotations part, which didn't indicate that it was a logical conclusion, just a facile one. The exact same argument can be said for patents. They only make sense if you know nothing about them except for the standard justification
Let's put it more clearly. The number of software patents prior to the CAFC opening the floodgates was a rounding error. Microsoft was already violating anti-trust law by the time that happened, and they had less than 12 patents, IIRC (and I think about 2 of them were software patents proper). So, practically speaking, you couldn't get patents on software until the 90s.
Okay, let me put it more bluntly. If you think Comcast is going to do anything that 1) won't make them money or 2) they are required by law to do, then you are gullible beyond gullible. the appropriate headline would be "Comcast's claims about investment due to NN repeal and Tax Cuts is clearly absolutely bullshit to anybody who knows anything about anything." But that kind of headline doesn't generally sit well with advertisers.
It's not a fallacy (and you didn't even mention a specific one). Copyright and patents are crude economic tools that have no place in modern economies. They do not work, have never worked, and never will work. Where competition exists, it exists DESPITE copyright and patents, not because of it.
Legal monopolies were a common tool prior to democracy and capitalism, but were correctly recognized as generally harmful in the 17th and 18th centuries. That's why, outside of copyright and patents, we only have a handful of legal monopolies, like the Mallinckrodt monopoly on cocaine.
Because, believe it or not, legal monopolies like patents actually HURT competition, which is where innovation actually comes from. One clue might be that the word MONOPOLY is a descriptor, and is the literally the opposite of competition.
Oh, I'm sorry, I didn't realize that you suffered from such enormous delusions that you actually think that "homo economicus" exists instead of emotional bald apes in suits.
How the hell did you jump from "stop the most blatant corruption" to "gave society everything they wanted with zero regard for how much it cost to provide those benefits?" I'm talking about the stuff that has the lowest cost-to-benefit ratio being the rational thing to cut.
No, rational thinking would lead you to cut the military budget and corporate subsidies, since they have far less utility to society. All that's needed to maintain Social Security's stability is to raise the cap, making it less of a regressive tax. The reason Republicans and Centrist Dems want to cut or "reform" Social Security is to cover for the money they've wasted elsewhere.
Yeah, but screwing over other people to get on top plays out more often. The way more empathetic cultures handle that is that the EXECUTIVES take pay cuts, but even thinking that will get you thrown out of a boardroom.
No, I'm speaking psychologically, not morally. CEOs, especially at the biggest companies, have much higher concentrations of sociopathy than the general public. It's a neurology that has many advantages, but also plenty of disadvantages. However, because politics tends to attract a similar level of sociopathy, the immediate effects of those disadvantages can be deferred.
You are excluding the possibility that many successful people succeed because of their lack of empathy, not despite it.
Yeah, bitcoin exchanges are a bit like uninsured banks.
The vast majority of the security problems seem to be with Bitcoin exchanges, who generally do a poor job. Bitcoin is technically quite secure, but it will always be vulnerable to social engineering.
Let me clarify. They don't have the capacity to help Russia "rig the election."