4 ms·

As a result of this 'theft', consumers now have more bendable phone options.

NicoJuicy 7y ago
It's all the same tech, what are you defending?? I would hate if this happened to the Nintendo Wii, Xbox Kinect or Playstation Move. Which triggered HTC Vice and the Oculus adoption, later on: Hololens. ( So AR and VR) They got so much better with actual competition and their own R&D instead of just stealing and hurting the innovator. Us as customers got a lot more options because of competition, not because of theft.
sgt101 7y ago
But in the future they will see less innovation as R&D is further slashed.
- izacus 7y ago
  I see this thrown around all the time when we talk about monopolizing IP and having huge corporations put their lawyer boots on smaller company throats... but is it really true? Will making IP protection weaker actually stifle innovation? Was innovation in industrial era hugely stuffled by not protecting every single patent a huge multi-national conglomerates throw out?
  - sgt101 7y ago
    Well, yes, hence the development of patents. "The English patent system evolved from its early medieval origins into the first modern patent system that recognised intellectual property in order to stimulate invention; this was the crucial legal foundation upon which the Industrial Revolution could emerge and flourish." ([1]Wikipedia) Without patents what you do is create trade secrets, patents publish the concepts that are protected, they are fully disclosed (or the patent is junk) and after 25 years anyone can use them. The 25 years is the time that you have to get payback on your invention - forcing investment in development now before your monopoly expires. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patent https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patent
  - NicoJuicy 7y ago
    Yes, the biggest open source corporation is known for Enterprise solutions ( red hat). Please find me an example that open-sourced everything, with their Enterprise solution.
- ionised 7y ago
  They are already seeing less innovation from phone makers. Phone makers have been short on ideas for a long time now. It didn't require any IP theft for that to happen.
AlexTWithBeard 7y ago
Right. And as a result of outsourcing all electronics manufacturing to China, US consumers now have cheaper TVs. They've lost factories, lost jobs, lost growth momentum, but got cheap TVs. Hooray?
- geofft 7y ago
  Jobs aren't an inherent good. They're a way for people to have money, which they can in turn exchange for things they need or want, which is the inherent good. Making it harder for people to get things they need or want simply so they can have jobs risks being self-defeating, and it assumes there will never be other ways to get people access to things they need or want.
  - AlexTWithBeard 7y ago
    No. Job is a way of manufacturing things people need or want. When you're well off, as a person or as a country, you can always find people or countries who will manufacture things for you. But they will want something back. Your real estate. Your universities. Your best people. It's a high price to pay for a bending phone.
    - geofft 7y ago
      Jobs are one way of manufacturing things people need or want. They're not the only way, unless we're playing semantic games by defining "jobs" in one sentence as "people offering 8h/day of their labor in the free market" and in the next as "people doing things"—and even if we are, let's at least be honest about the difference between "people doing things that are actually inherently productive and efficient" and "people doing things that are inefficient because we want the excuse to pay them for it." Job growth because it enables manufacturing is one thing; job growth because it enables paying people is quite another. As we become more efficient and automated in manufacturing, we'll have to decide what to do when there simply aren't enough jobs to go around. There are ways to continue giving people money to buy the things they need or want—or perhaps enable them to get the things they need or want without money—without requiring them to have jobs, or making that money proportional to the market value of their work. And they seem quite ethical. That's why I say that jobs aren't an inherent good. They're a means to an inherently-good end. That makes them conditionally good, so long as they continue to serve the end. Prioritizing the means over the end would be a mistake. There is no comparable alternative to giving people the things they need or want. I can think of a few (e.g., drugging people, plugging them into the Matrix) and they're unethical.
umvi 7y ago
That's so short sighted... If companies R&D is free game for competition, they will be more reluctant to innovate
- johndough 7y ago
  Why would they be more reluctant to innovate? Couldn't it also be the opposite? For example, companies could spend more on R&D to stay ahead of the competition and lead the field instead of releasing copies of a product months or years later.
  - kwxza 7y ago
    How can a company lead the field if their R&D is free for the competition to take?
- ionised 7y ago
  Nobody ever backs up this assertion.

It's all the same tech, what are you defending?? I would hate if this happened to the Nintendo Wii, Xbox Kinect or Playstation Move. Which triggered HTC Vice and the Oculus adoption, later on: Hololens. ( So AR and VR) They got so much better with actual competition and their own R&D instead of just stealing and hurting the innovator. Us as customers got a lot more options because of competition, not because of theft.

sgt101 7y ago

But in the future they will see less innovation as R&D is further slashed.

izacus 7y ago
I see this thrown around all the time when we talk about monopolizing IP and having huge corporations put their lawyer boots on smaller company throats... but is it really true? Will making IP protection weaker actually stifle innovation? Was innovation in industrial era hugely stuffled by not protecting every single patent a huge multi-national conglomerates throw out?
- sgt101 7y ago
  Well, yes, hence the development of patents. "The English patent system evolved from its early medieval origins into the first modern patent system that recognised intellectual property in order to stimulate invention; this was the crucial legal foundation upon which the Industrial Revolution could emerge and flourish." ([1]Wikipedia) Without patents what you do is create trade secrets, patents publish the concepts that are protected, they are fully disclosed (or the patent is junk) and after 25 years anyone can use them. The 25 years is the time that you have to get payback on your invention - forcing investment in development now before your monopoly expires. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patent https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patent
- NicoJuicy 7y ago
  Yes, the biggest open source corporation is known for Enterprise solutions ( red hat). Please find me an example that open-sourced everything, with their Enterprise solution.
ionised 7y ago
They are already seeing less innovation from phone makers. Phone makers have been short on ideas for a long time now. It didn't require any IP theft for that to happen.

AlexTWithBeard 7y ago

Right. And as a result of outsourcing all electronics manufacturing to China, US consumers now have cheaper TVs. They've lost factories, lost jobs, lost growth momentum, but got cheap TVs. Hooray?

geofft 7y ago
Jobs aren't an inherent good. They're a way for people to have money, which they can in turn exchange for things they need or want, which is the inherent good. Making it harder for people to get things they need or want simply so they can have jobs risks being self-defeating, and it assumes there will never be other ways to get people access to things they need or want.
- AlexTWithBeard 7y ago
  No. Job is a way of manufacturing things people need or want. When you're well off, as a person or as a country, you can always find people or countries who will manufacture things for you. But they will want something back. Your real estate. Your universities. Your best people. It's a high price to pay for a bending phone.
  - geofft 7y ago
    Jobs are one way of manufacturing things people need or want. They're not the only way, unless we're playing semantic games by defining "jobs" in one sentence as "people offering 8h/day of their labor in the free market" and in the next as "people doing things"—and even if we are, let's at least be honest about the difference between "people doing things that are actually inherently productive and efficient" and "people doing things that are inefficient because we want the excuse to pay them for it." Job growth because it enables manufacturing is one thing; job growth because it enables paying people is quite another. As we become more efficient and automated in manufacturing, we'll have to decide what to do when there simply aren't enough jobs to go around. There are ways to continue giving people money to buy the things they need or want—or perhaps enable them to get the things they need or want without money—without requiring them to have jobs, or making that money proportional to the market value of their work. And they seem quite ethical. That's why I say that jobs aren't an inherent good. They're a means to an inherently-good end. That makes them conditionally good, so long as they continue to serve the end. Prioritizing the means over the end would be a mistake. There is no comparable alternative to giving people the things they need or want. I can think of a few (e.g., drugging people, plugging them into the Matrix) and they're unethical.

umvi 7y ago

That's so short sighted... If companies R&D is free game for competition, they will be more reluctant to innovate

johndough 7y ago
Why would they be more reluctant to innovate? Couldn't it also be the opposite? For example, companies could spend more on R&D to stay ahead of the competition and lead the field instead of releasing copies of a product months or years later.
- kwxza 7y ago
  How can a company lead the field if their R&D is free for the competition to take?
ionised 7y ago
Nobody ever backs up this assertion.