"The amount you are charged for an ad running in
the AdWords program is dependent on two related factors: (1) the number of
times the ad is displayed on the Google results page, which is known as an
"impression"and (2) the position
on the page, one through eight, in which the ad appears. Naturally, the top
positions on the page are charged higher rates. The rates are as follows:
You only need one button do you? So, when you click on something, how does it now whether you want to a) open it, b) select it, c) Alter its properties etc? Do you have to hold in ctrl keys and meta keys etc?
Excuse me, I thought free trade spurred capitalism? Doesn't it force domestic industries to compete with the rest of the world and lower prices for all consumers? Replace the federalincome tax with higher tariffs, even for the greatly reduced budget you're proposing, would create a trade war with the rest of the world the likes of which the nation has never seen. Libertarians tend to operate in a vacuum.
The Libertarian Party's proposal here is to strip down the budget so much that tariffs and excise taxes currently in effect can pay for everything.
For that matter why should a naval shipping company help pay for the roads that a rival trucking company uses? Or why should the trucking company help pay for the Coast Guard to protect the shipping lanes of his naval competitor?
Currenty, federal highway subsidies are paid for by the gasoline tax, so the people who use the roads are the ones who pay for them. I don't know if port fees and boat registration fees pay for the Coast Guard, but it would be nice if they did.
I dare you to name a single scientific theory that's at least 50 years old and hasn't been useful
If we can't think of any, that doesn't prove, or even suggest, anything. The only scientific theories that most people hear about are ones that are either useful or new. I expect there are plenty of old, useless theories which we have forgotten about because they are useless.
Please note that the actual creators of the software are paid chicken feed to create the digital patterns which Microsoft turns into billions of dollars worth of profits by using their replicators, and forbidding us to use ours.
If you divide Microsoft's R+D budget by the number of employees in R+D, you get over $300,000/year. You can only use so much equipment, so most of that must go to wages and benefits. You could feed a lot of chickens with that, and that doesn't include stock options.
IP in general is a natural extention of the freedom to contract.
Let's say I live in a world with no IP laws. I invent a revolutionary new manufacturing process. If I just make it public, I get fame but little else. I'll be lucky to even recover my costs. So instead, I approach a few manufacturing companies. After making them sign an agreement not to use or reveal the process without my permission, with large penalties if they do, I let them look at my process. They like it, and pay me a fee to use it. I'm happy, and they're happy. So are their customers, since they can get more goods for cheaper.
But things could be better. Only a few large companies have access to the process. I would like to sell the process to many small manufacturers, and they would like to buy it, but the costs of making and enforcing the contracts are too high. Since the process is a secret, many new inventions which could have been based on it are never made.
The government notices this, and offers me a deal. It will sign an NDA on behalf of the public if I agree to stop charging fees after twenty years. Everyone can look at the process and learn from it. Everyone can decide whether it is worth the licence fee. I get more customers, and the public can get it for free when the term expires. If I think it is worth it, I agree and everyone comes out ahead. Otherwise, I keep doing what I was doing anyway, and nobody gets hurt.
This is the principle behind the patent. Nothing is magic about the details. The government can and should adjust the term for new patents in order to provide the best deal for the public. If inventors don't like it, they can alway fall back on trade secrets and NDAs. As with any other contract, I have no right to expect the other party to be a philantropist.
A similar argument can be applied to copyrights. It is just a different deal applied to a different subset of potential secrets.
There is no such deal for scientific discoveries because there is no fixed term which would give the public a better deal than what they already get. Instead, the government subsidizes basic research both directly and indirectly through subsidies of universities. We all pool together to pay the salaries and expences of scientists, and in exchange they release their discoveries into the public domain. As incentives for exceptional work, scientists have the opportunity to gain professional recognision, fame, and future employment. And if that's not enough, they can choose to pursue other lines of work, or look for private purchasers of research (such as Celera) who may provide better terms.
If the current system is unfair, it is because the government is offering the wrong set of terms on patents and copyrights. IMHO, patents should be reserved for cases where it appears unlikely that anyone else would have invented the same thing, at least until late in the term of the patent. In other cases, it may be better to offer a shorter termed, narrower version of a patent, or even leave inventors to fall back on trade secrets.
Slashdot Mirror
It was stolen by Apple BEFORE it was invented by Microsoft.
Perhaps there are some other factors at play, like the fact that the USSR bombed them into the ground.
Western Europe did okay after Nazi Germany bombed them into the ground.
https://adwords.google.com/AdWords/faq.html#where
"The amount you are charged for an ad running in the AdWords program is dependent on two related factors: (1) the number of times the ad is displayed on the Google results page, which is known as an "impression"and (2) the position on the page, one through eight, in which the ad appears. Naturally, the top positions on the page are charged higher rates. The rates are as follows:
You only need one button do you? So, when you click on something, how does it now whether you want to a) open it, b) select it, c) Alter its properties etc? Do you have to hold in ctrl keys and meta keys etc?
a) Double click
b) Single click
c) Click and hold
According to http://www.blinkenlights.com/pc.shtml, the first personal computer was the Berkeley Enterprises Simon, which shipped in 1950.
Excuse me, I thought free trade spurred capitalism? Doesn't it force domestic industries to compete with the rest of the world and lower prices for all consumers? Replace the federalincome tax with higher tariffs, even for the greatly reduced budget you're proposing, would create a trade war with the rest of the world the likes of which the nation has never seen. Libertarians tend to operate in a vacuum.
The Libertarian Party's proposal here is to strip down the budget so much that tariffs and excise taxes currently in effect can pay for everything.
For that matter why should a naval shipping company help pay for the roads that a rival trucking company uses? Or why should the trucking company help pay for the Coast Guard to protect the shipping lanes of his naval competitor?
Currenty, federal highway subsidies are paid for by the gasoline tax, so the people who use the roads are the ones who pay for them. I don't know if port fees and boat registration fees pay for the Coast Guard, but it would be nice if they did.
I dare you to name a single scientific theory that's at least 50 years old and hasn't been useful
If we can't think of any, that doesn't prove, or even suggest, anything. The only scientific theories that most people hear about are ones that are either useful or new. I expect there are plenty of old, useless theories which we have forgotten about because they are useless.
"Man is the best computer we can put on a spacecraft, an the only one which can be mass produced by unskilled labor." --Werner von Braun
Well put, but unfortunantly not true on either count anymore.
Please note that the actual creators of the software are paid chicken feed to create the digital patterns which Microsoft turns into billions of dollars worth of profits by using their replicators, and forbidding us to use ours.
If you divide Microsoft's R+D budget by the number of employees in R+D, you get over $300,000/year. You can only use so much equipment, so most of that must go to wages and benefits. You could feed a lot of chickens with that, and that doesn't include stock options.
IP in general is a natural extention of the freedom to contract.
Let's say I live in a world with no IP laws. I invent a revolutionary new manufacturing process. If I just make it public, I get fame but little else. I'll be lucky to even recover my costs. So instead, I approach a few manufacturing companies. After making them sign an agreement not to use or reveal the process without my permission, with large penalties if they do, I let them look at my process. They like it, and pay me a fee to use it. I'm happy, and they're happy. So are their customers, since they can get more goods for cheaper.
But things could be better. Only a few large companies have access to the process. I would like to sell the process to many small manufacturers, and they would like to buy it, but the costs of making and enforcing the contracts are too high. Since the process is a secret, many new inventions which could have been based on it are never made.
The government notices this, and offers me a deal. It will sign an NDA on behalf of the public if I agree to stop charging fees after twenty years. Everyone can look at the process and learn from it. Everyone can decide whether it is worth the licence fee. I get more customers, and the public can get it for free when the term expires. If I think it is worth it, I agree and everyone comes out ahead. Otherwise, I keep doing what I was doing anyway, and nobody gets hurt.
This is the principle behind the patent. Nothing is magic about the details. The government can and should adjust the term for new patents in order to provide the best deal for the public. If inventors don't like it, they can alway fall back on trade secrets and NDAs. As with any other contract, I have no right to expect the other party to be a philantropist.
A similar argument can be applied to copyrights. It is just a different deal applied to a different subset of potential secrets.
There is no such deal for scientific discoveries because there is no fixed term which would give the public a better deal than what they already get. Instead, the government subsidizes basic research both directly and indirectly through subsidies of universities. We all pool together to pay the salaries and expences of scientists, and in exchange they release their discoveries into the public domain. As incentives for exceptional work, scientists have the opportunity to gain professional recognision, fame, and future employment. And if that's not enough, they can choose to pursue other lines of work, or look for private purchasers of research (such as Celera) who may provide better terms.
If the current system is unfair, it is because the government is offering the wrong set of terms on patents and copyrights. IMHO, patents should be reserved for cases where it appears unlikely that anyone else would have invented the same thing, at least until late in the term of the patent. In other cases, it may be better to offer a shorter termed, narrower version of a patent, or even leave inventors to fall back on trade secrets.