3 ms·
>It's a very capitalistic view to think that the only motivation to innovate is the profit motive. But isn't your entire argument self-contradictory with the s
by xoa 7y ago
>It's a very capitalistic view to think that the only motivation to innovate is the profit motive.
But isn't your entire argument self-contradictory with the story? This isn't a case of them developing them same thing and then, say, ignoring being sued over patent infringement or something. This is them just taking it instead. If your argument was right that IP wasn't useful for innovation, then they wouldn't need to take it from others, they could create it themselves. They've certainly got enough of a unified population, and can even see where others have gone first.
More fundamentally, IP is not at the core about "motivation", it's a hack to deal with a limited resource problem. Replicating information is essentially free, but generating it is not. R&D, particularly in areas where iteration requires enormous capital expenditure and there is a lot of finding paths in the dark, takes significant resources. And since we don't have unlimited amounts of those, decisions have to be made about how and where to spend them. The market, properly used, has proven to be one of our most effective tools for dealing with efficient resource allocation. Markets though normally are based around the specific resources and replication. IP attempts to graft that. IP also is intended to encourage sharing and decrease inefficient efforts to hide valuable information through technical and personnel based means.
As I said it's a hack, because information isn't the same as real world materials. There are different costs to society in maintaining it, and it requires societal cooperation in a way that defending limited physical property does not. It's more than reasonable to debate the frameworks for IP, such as how long it should last (be it fixed term or dynamic terms with ever increasing renewals required), what exceptions should be made, etc. But if you've got a steep hill to climb if you want to claim IP should be done away with. It'd help if you could even posit a better way to direct resources, keeping in mind the failures of the past. It'd help even more if you could point to anyone developing valuable information better without IP, which right now you cannot. China hacking into places to take it vs developing itself certainly doesn't help you there.
- socialist_coder 7y agoI think he's trying to say that there could be an argument made for catching China up to the rest of the world, so that they can spend their resources innovating on new things, not just trying to get caught up. It's not hard to see how that would be a net benefit for the world (except of course for the Western IP holders). Please don't think I'm supporting this, just trying to see this side of the argument.
- incompatible 7y agoI think we'd be better off with a system that promotes free flow of information, but local production of goods and services. Products shouldn't be available without full specifications and fabrication methods. Web services shouldn't exist without interoperability protocols and source code. I think this would be a hackers' paradise, and this is "Hacker News", after all.
- segfaultbuserr 7y agoUpvote. This is a very interesting alternative take on globalization vs protectionism I'd love to hear from Hacker News, even if it may be impractical. Perhaps something close to what you've described is LibreSilicon [0], a free and open source semiconductor manufacturing process (only 1 micrometer though) currently in development. [0] https://libresilicon.com/ https://libresilicon.com/
- wolco 7y agoLike a stronger military?
- majormajor 7y agoThe US famously did the "catch up and then leap fast" thing, which worked out great for the US, and probably less bad for the rest of the world than if Germany had won WWII or the Soviet Union had been more dominant. Hard for me to feel that all that influence over the next century going to the particular flavor of country that is modern China is gonna be good for the rest of the world, though. But, interestingly, that's not an IP-related argument, that's a political system one.