Apple has a pretty serious chance to win over a whole slew of developers and users. The only limitation is the price tag. How many people want to pay $2,500+ to buy an Apple when they can get a vanilla home built pc for around $700.
Personally as a developer, if I could build my own vanilla Apple system I would obviously write software for what I own. Otherwise I will stick to the cheap and widely available pc.
I am certainly not saying that. A capitalistic society should always seek to bolster other socities into either a)becoming capitalistic or b)improving their economy. Since trade is also a signficant part of our society it is important that third world countries become more than third world countries. America isn't the ideal model for capitalism, I am just saying it is by necessity of our survival that we use it. However your correct IPR's can be misused to not only damage competition (i.e. Microsoft) but also to garner incredibly high profits vs. sharing information. I support Linux, I support charity and various other things that are non-capitalistic in their origin because of the results we as a society garner from these types of programs. I am simply saying however that IPR's are a necessity in America where your product is as only as good as your development team (and to survive you must protect your investment). The important thing here is not to go to extremes. Extreme Nationalism/Capitalism (i.e. Anarcho Capitalism) or extreme altruism is idiotic in a manner. However a solid blend of both is what lends to a truely strong society and economy. Either way I am equally appalled at what some companies do and they are anti-competitive in their nature by doing so.
There is a time and place for IPR's. Capitalism- We (United States) are a highly socialized (and becoming moreso) society. However our lifeblood and social structure is based heavily around the concept of Capitalism. The arguement here is simple and short: We cannot take the means of profit protection away otherwise our economy will be wraught to ruin. Logically speaking IPR stands as a measure to advance our society technologically as well as economically (through profit). If a person in our capitalistic society takes the initiative to develop products, then he is also entitled to the profit from them. Anything else in this society is illogical. The profit allows further and greater expenditure in areas which development would heed beneficial results and advances to the IPR. The protection of an IPR therby guarentees that profit which allows further worthwile products to come forth. At any point however a competitor can and will invariably design a product that outperforms the other. Thus to ensure fair competition IPR's must be enforced in capitalistic society otherwise the competition is no longer capitalistic in nature but altruistic. Altruism in a society that is based around the concept of capitalism is a devastating idea. Essentiall you take the model which allows the society to thrive economically and replace it with fluff. Open Source Of course all the above applies to Linux. The nature of Linux and all other open source products also fall under this system. Linux and various other open source and for the most part freely developed products cannot be sustainable without market capitalization on the innovations of those products. If we were to immediatley remove IPR's then not only would the economy immediately suffer but as a corllary so would the "free" projects supported by a thriving economy. A thriving economy can support a loss in the strive for innovation. However a weak economy cannot support such a loss. Either way removing IPR's from (at least the US) would significantly damage and inflict great harm on all aspects of the economy as well as the lifestyles within. Utopian worlds are great to conceptualize philisophical tests in but to carry them out they must use real world scenarios. Jarrett.
Slashdot Mirror
Apple has a pretty serious chance to win over a whole slew of developers and users. The only limitation is the price tag. How many people want to pay $2,500+ to buy an Apple when they can get a vanilla home built pc for around $700. Personally as a developer, if I could build my own vanilla Apple system I would obviously write software for what I own. Otherwise I will stick to the cheap and widely available pc.
I am certainly not saying that. A capitalistic society should always seek to bolster other socities into either a)becoming capitalistic or b)improving their economy. Since trade is also a signficant part of our society it is important that third world countries become more than third world countries. America isn't the ideal model for capitalism, I am just saying it is by necessity of our survival that we use it. However your correct IPR's can be misused to not only damage competition (i.e. Microsoft) but also to garner incredibly high profits vs. sharing information. I support Linux, I support charity and various other things that are non-capitalistic in their origin because of the results we as a society garner from these types of programs. I am simply saying however that IPR's are a necessity in America where your product is as only as good as your development team (and to survive you must protect your investment). The important thing here is not to go to extremes. Extreme Nationalism/Capitalism (i.e. Anarcho Capitalism) or extreme altruism is idiotic in a manner. However a solid blend of both is what lends to a truely strong society and economy. Either way I am equally appalled at what some companies do and they are anti-competitive in their nature by doing so.
There is a time and place for IPR's. Capitalism- We (United States) are a highly socialized (and becoming moreso) society. However our lifeblood and social structure is based heavily around the concept of Capitalism. The arguement here is simple and short: We cannot take the means of profit protection away otherwise our economy will be wraught to ruin. Logically speaking IPR stands as a measure to advance our society technologically as well as economically (through profit). If a person in our capitalistic society takes the initiative to develop products, then he is also entitled to the profit from them. Anything else in this society is illogical. The profit allows further and greater expenditure in areas which development would heed beneficial results and advances to the IPR. The protection of an IPR therby guarentees that profit which allows further worthwile products to come forth. At any point however a competitor can and will invariably design a product that outperforms the other. Thus to ensure fair competition IPR's must be enforced in capitalistic society otherwise the competition is no longer capitalistic in nature but altruistic. Altruism in a society that is based around the concept of capitalism is a devastating idea. Essentiall you take the model which allows the society to thrive economically and replace it with fluff. Open Source Of course all the above applies to Linux. The nature of Linux and all other open source products also fall under this system. Linux and various other open source and for the most part freely developed products cannot be sustainable without market capitalization on the innovations of those products. If we were to immediatley remove IPR's then not only would the economy immediately suffer but as a corllary so would the "free" projects supported by a thriving economy. A thriving economy can support a loss in the strive for innovation. However a weak economy cannot support such a loss. Either way removing IPR's from (at least the US) would significantly damage and inflict great harm on all aspects of the economy as well as the lifestyles within. Utopian worlds are great to conceptualize philisophical tests in but to carry them out they must use real world scenarios. Jarrett.