IA companies trade secrets are going to be protected one way or another. For example, I believe California has very strong trade secret protection but IANAL.
The biggest problem I see with non-competes is they stifle innovation. An employee may have good innovative ideas to which management is unreceptive. With a rigorously enforced non-compete agreement the employee is stuck. However, in a state that does not enforce non-compete agreements the employee can take is innovation to a company willing to develop it.
The consequences you ascribe to "freeloaders" are not really a product of "freeloading". For example, popular music sounds the same today because either the FCC has continually approved greater and greater consolidation of the radio and television industries. When only one company is calling the shots there's only one thing to hear (if you believe radio station airplay influences what people like) or because there has been an enormous consolidation in the record labels which focus their attention on a few kids bop hit makers. This process started long before filesharing. For example, NKOTB.
Insipid movies and sequalitis are also not new. Remember Police Academy 5? Friday 13th part 4, Nightmare on Elm Street 723? Revenge of the Nerds 3? After Mash? All of these titles were produced before filesharing.
I'm not saying that rampant filesharing doesn't have its price. It's possible that there are social consequences which may exacerbate the process you describe, hut you can't seriously try to blame it all on filesharing. And frankly, since it was happening pre-Napster its a little disingenuous to try.
Corporations create sequels because its cheaper (current spider-man film notwithstanding) and less risky to make a sequel than to develop something new. Label create generic music because when a handful of companies control most of the radio available today, why take a risk on something edgy. These are economic incentives that have little or nothing to do with filesharing.
The U.S. technology industry added almost 150,000 jobs in 2006, according to an Apr. 24 report by the American Electronics Assn. (AeA), an industry trade group. That was the largest gain since 2001, before the implosion of the tech bubble resulted in the loss of more than 1 million jobs in three years.
So in 2001,2002,2003 we lost 1,000,000 jobs. In 2004, 2005, and 2006 we gained no more than 150,000 jobs per year for a maximum of 450,000 jobs.
Seems to me like the industry is still down 550,000 tech jobs. So how can there be a shortage of workers?
But all CIOs see is that it "costs" 20% as much to develop in India or China. What CIO is going to pass that up?
Wall street rewards the short sighted.
Slashdot Mirror
IA companies trade secrets are going to be protected one way or another. For example, I believe California has very strong trade secret protection but IANAL.
The biggest problem I see with non-competes is they stifle innovation. An employee may have good innovative ideas to which management is unreceptive. With a rigorously enforced non-compete agreement the employee is stuck. However, in a state that does not enforce non-compete agreements the employee can take is innovation to a company willing to develop it.
Insipid movies and sequalitis are also not new. Remember Police Academy 5? Friday 13th part 4, Nightmare on Elm Street 723? Revenge of the Nerds 3? After Mash? All of these titles were produced before filesharing.
I'm not saying that rampant filesharing doesn't have its price. It's possible that there are social consequences which may exacerbate the process you describe, hut you can't seriously try to blame it all on filesharing. And frankly, since it was happening pre-Napster its a little disingenuous to try.
Corporations create sequels because its cheaper (current spider-man film notwithstanding) and less risky to make a sequel than to develop something new. Label create generic music because when a handful of companies control most of the radio available today, why take a risk on something edgy. These are economic incentives that have little or nothing to do with filesharing.
According to music execs, both spellings are valid.
But all CIOs see is that it "costs" 20% as much to develop in India or China. What CIO is going to pass that up? Wall street rewards the short sighted.