4 ms·

Not sure why history made Henry Ford a hero and example of modern capitalist. To me, Henry Ford is pretty controversial person. He started his business by infri

Not sure why history made Henry Ford a hero and example of modern capitalist. To me, Henry Ford is pretty controversial person. He started his business by infringing already valid car patents. He (as underdog) had luck, that it was in time America has started battle with monopolies, so public sentiment was probably on his side. Trying to reproduce what Ford did back then today, layers would rip you apart. He also supported german nazi party and directly supported Hitler with annual 50000$ donations. In one of his factories he ordered to suppress employee strike, resulting to many injuries and also some deaths. So now, where is the similarity with Elon Musk? I see Elon musk as true visionary and honest guy. Oh yes, the article is about manufacturing process, not about comparing characters. :)

Findeton 8y ago
A Patent is nothing more than a government-granted temporary monopoly. Thus, patents are bad, as in they intervene the free market.
- Nomentatus 8y ago
  Perhaps the main purpose of patents is to reduce the number of trade secrets; which can last centuries and are even more destructive. See the history of forceps.
- finchisko 8y ago
  Imagine you've spent millions developing revolutionary product. And then some random company, will steel your idea and start producing clones for fraction of costs as they didn't have to spent any money on R&D. What sane person on earth would put money on R&D in that kind of environment? Of course, you can find many examples, where patents are actually hurting invention and progress, but I don't see any other way to protect your investment (both financial and intellectual).
  - mindcrime 8y ago
    And then some random company, will steel your idea and start producing clones for fraction of costs as they didn't have to spent any money on R&D. If it is that easy for somebody to clone your thing, it probably wasn't actually all that revolutionary. And anyway, all this dynamic will do is force an innovation "arms race". You won't be able to just invent something and then rest on your laurels, getting rich while you laugh your way to the bank. You'll have to innovate continuously to stay ahead of the would-be "idea grabbers". That's a net win for everybody, even if you don't get quite as rich in the end.
    - finchisko 8y ago
      I cannot agree with you. But that is OK. ;) I give you one of many examples. Transistor. Is cheap to produce, but hard to invent. Also "just invent something and then rest on your laurels". I don't see single reason why it's bad thing.
      - mindcrime 8y ago
        I give you one of many examples. Transistor. Is cheap to produce, but hard to invent. Cheap to produce now, sure. Was it "cheap to produce" shortly after it was invented? And do you think the transistors we talk about today are identical to the ones invented in 1947? Or has there been continued innovation in that space, yielding BJT's, FET's, MOSFETS, and so on? If you're the original inventor of a "thing" it's almost always going to be the case that you (or somebody with access to your engineers, etc. on an "official" basis) is going to have an advantage in terms of producing the "thing", simply because you know it and its innards better than the would be cloners... (and if this isn't the case, I go back to my assertion that the "thing" probably isn't actually very revolutionary at all). Anyway, if you invent something, and you feel the pressure to keep inventing because eventually the cloners will figure out how to build your thing as well as you, then that's a net win when "v2" (think, BJT, FET, etc.) gets invented sooner than it might have otherwise. Also "just invent something and then rest on your laurels". I don't see single reason why it's bad thing. Of course if you care about only a strictly selfish measure of how rich you become in the end, then you'd rather be able to just invent something, and monopolize it for n years. My point is that A. you can make money off an invention even without that artificial monopoly, and B. society wins when there is an arms race effect propelling innovation.

Findeton 8y ago

A Patent is nothing more than a government-granted temporary monopoly. Thus, patents are bad, as in they intervene the free market.

Nomentatus 8y ago
Perhaps the main purpose of patents is to reduce the number of trade secrets; which can last centuries and are even more destructive. See the history of forceps.
finchisko 8y ago
Imagine you've spent millions developing revolutionary product. And then some random company, will steel your idea and start producing clones for fraction of costs as they didn't have to spent any money on R&D. What sane person on earth would put money on R&D in that kind of environment? Of course, you can find many examples, where patents are actually hurting invention and progress, but I don't see any other way to protect your investment (both financial and intellectual).
- mindcrime 8y ago
  And then some random company, will steel your idea and start producing clones for fraction of costs as they didn't have to spent any money on R&D. If it is that easy for somebody to clone your thing, it probably wasn't actually all that revolutionary. And anyway, all this dynamic will do is force an innovation "arms race". You won't be able to just invent something and then rest on your laurels, getting rich while you laugh your way to the bank. You'll have to innovate continuously to stay ahead of the would-be "idea grabbers". That's a net win for everybody, even if you don't get quite as rich in the end.
  - finchisko 8y ago
    I cannot agree with you. But that is OK. ;) I give you one of many examples. Transistor. Is cheap to produce, but hard to invent. Also "just invent something and then rest on your laurels". I don't see single reason why it's bad thing.
    - mindcrime 8y ago
      I give you one of many examples. Transistor. Is cheap to produce, but hard to invent. Cheap to produce now, sure. Was it "cheap to produce" shortly after it was invented? And do you think the transistors we talk about today are identical to the ones invented in 1947? Or has there been continued innovation in that space, yielding BJT's, FET's, MOSFETS, and so on? If you're the original inventor of a "thing" it's almost always going to be the case that you (or somebody with access to your engineers, etc. on an "official" basis) is going to have an advantage in terms of producing the "thing", simply because you know it and its innards better than the would be cloners... (and if this isn't the case, I go back to my assertion that the "thing" probably isn't actually very revolutionary at all). Anyway, if you invent something, and you feel the pressure to keep inventing because eventually the cloners will figure out how to build your thing as well as you, then that's a net win when "v2" (think, BJT, FET, etc.) gets invented sooner than it might have otherwise. Also "just invent something and then rest on your laurels". I don't see single reason why it's bad thing. Of course if you care about only a strictly selfish measure of how rich you become in the end, then you'd rather be able to just invent something, and monopolize it for n years. My point is that A. you can make money off an invention even without that artificial monopoly, and B. society wins when there is an arms race effect propelling innovation.