4 ms·

Not sure if this comment is sarcasm, but if we didn't attempt to reasonably protect trade secrets the opposite of what you are saying would happen. If I invest

Not sure if this comment is sarcasm, but if we didn't attempt to reasonably protect trade secrets the opposite of what you are saying would happen. If I invest billions in a form of technology or a superior product and it can just walk out the door to any competitor, I actually have a perverse incentive to milk my existing products as much as possible and AVOID innovation due to the lack of return on it and the ability for those ideas to just walk out to another competitor

cwhiz 6y ago
Patents exist.
breck 6y ago
> Not sure if this comment is sarcasm No, I'm generally curious, why do we have trade secret laws? Seems anti-capitalist, anti-freedom, anti-equality to me. There must be people who question them and I'm curious to learn more. > If I invest billions... Yes, if you had billions to invest you should strongly dislike this idea. I'm saying that perhaps trade secret laws are good for billionaires, bad for everyone else. So removing them would be bad for billionaires, good for everyone else. Shareholders have the government's help in preventing their employees from leaving to compete. Without that help, they'd have to treat their employees on a more equal footing. > AVOID innovation A freer market generally leads to more innovation, not less. Sure, a small number of billionaires may stop funding innovation, but that may be dwarfed by the rise of a number of innovative upstart companies made up of former employees.
- asdfasgasdgasdg 6y ago
  > I'm saying that perhaps trade secret laws are good for billionaires, bad for everyone else. Sure. In a certain, short-sighted sense, so are any property rights. Trade secret law is important for anyone who wants to invest in the creation of high value intellectual property that won't be protected with patents. Without such protection, there is much less incentive for investment. Billionaires are one group of people who conduct such investment. Startup founders and early employees are another. Another group that may interest you is anyone who invests through the public market in companies that derive value from trade secret protections. And of course anyone who finds value in the purchase of such goods, or any employee of such a company. I know I personally would not attempt to build high value intellectual property if there were no trade secrets. If I had an idea I thought would be valuable but depended on the scheme, I'd leave and do the work in a country that supported my intellectual property rights.
  - breck 6y ago
    > so are any property rights. The term "Intellectual Property" is a red herring. You cannot have property rights and IP rights. Logically it doesn't work (if you say my computer is my property, but that I can't arrange the bits how I want, then it is not my property). This case is well made in many places so I won't regurgitate much further. But it's important to clarify that the term is a euphemism and is in direct conflict with actual property laws. Better choice of terms include "Intellectual Control Laws", "Intellectual Bureaucracy Laws", or "Intellectual Slavery Laws". > Trade secret law is important for anyone... I am not arguing that trade secret law is unimportant for investors of capital. I agree it is very important for investors of capital. However, it seems to be an unnatural state of affairs, to have the government involved in enforcing secrets among its citizens. Why not let the free market figure it out? To me it seems that would be both more equitable and much more effective in a utilitarian sort of way. However, I don't dispute that it is in the strong financial interests of the top 1% of the population (myself included) to keep these laws as is. I'm just saying they are likely unethical and counterproductive if one were to optimize society for innovation. > I know I personally would not attempt to build high value intellectual property if there were no trade secrets. Mathematically the world would not notice, even if your name was Edison. The most impactful inventions in the world were all invented far before we had copyright and patent laws. We are all putting grains of sand on mountains built by our ancestors.
    - asdfasgasdgasdg 6y ago
      > Better choice of terms include "Intellectual Control Laws", "Intellectual Bureaucracy Laws", or "Intellectual Slavery Laws I'll go ahead and keep calling them what everyone else does, thanks. > However, it seems to be an unnatural state of affairs, I'm not overly concerned with what is natural. Many good things are not natural. Why not let the market figure it out? Because the market is known to be inefficient for the production of non-rival, non-excludable goods. Traditional macro econ theory suggests that without protection these goods will be produced less than they ought. There are other solutions to the problem besides government intervention, but the ones I'm aware of require very high levels of consumer coordination. > We are all putting grains of sand on mountains built by our ancestors. Then you shouldn't be too bothered about the restriction on handling of trade secrets by folks other than their owners. I mean if it doesn't matter what gets invented, who cares whether someone owns it or not?

cwhiz 6y ago

Patents exist.

breck 6y ago

> Not sure if this comment is sarcasm No, I'm generally curious, why do we have trade secret laws? Seems anti-capitalist, anti-freedom, anti-equality to me. There must be people who question them and I'm curious to learn more. > If I invest billions... Yes, if you had billions to invest you should strongly dislike this idea. I'm saying that perhaps trade secret laws are good for billionaires, bad for everyone else. So removing them would be bad for billionaires, good for everyone else. Shareholders have the government's help in preventing their employees from leaving to compete. Without that help, they'd have to treat their employees on a more equal footing. > AVOID innovation A freer market generally leads to more innovation, not less. Sure, a small number of billionaires may stop funding innovation, but that may be dwarfed by the rise of a number of innovative upstart companies made up of former employees.

asdfasgasdgasdg 6y ago
> I'm saying that perhaps trade secret laws are good for billionaires, bad for everyone else. Sure. In a certain, short-sighted sense, so are any property rights. Trade secret law is important for anyone who wants to invest in the creation of high value intellectual property that won't be protected with patents. Without such protection, there is much less incentive for investment. Billionaires are one group of people who conduct such investment. Startup founders and early employees are another. Another group that may interest you is anyone who invests through the public market in companies that derive value from trade secret protections. And of course anyone who finds value in the purchase of such goods, or any employee of such a company. I know I personally would not attempt to build high value intellectual property if there were no trade secrets. If I had an idea I thought would be valuable but depended on the scheme, I'd leave and do the work in a country that supported my intellectual property rights.
- breck 6y ago
  > so are any property rights. The term "Intellectual Property" is a red herring. You cannot have property rights and IP rights. Logically it doesn't work (if you say my computer is my property, but that I can't arrange the bits how I want, then it is not my property). This case is well made in many places so I won't regurgitate much further. But it's important to clarify that the term is a euphemism and is in direct conflict with actual property laws. Better choice of terms include "Intellectual Control Laws", "Intellectual Bureaucracy Laws", or "Intellectual Slavery Laws". > Trade secret law is important for anyone... I am not arguing that trade secret law is unimportant for investors of capital. I agree it is very important for investors of capital. However, it seems to be an unnatural state of affairs, to have the government involved in enforcing secrets among its citizens. Why not let the free market figure it out? To me it seems that would be both more equitable and much more effective in a utilitarian sort of way. However, I don't dispute that it is in the strong financial interests of the top 1% of the population (myself included) to keep these laws as is. I'm just saying they are likely unethical and counterproductive if one were to optimize society for innovation. > I know I personally would not attempt to build high value intellectual property if there were no trade secrets. Mathematically the world would not notice, even if your name was Edison. The most impactful inventions in the world were all invented far before we had copyright and patent laws. We are all putting grains of sand on mountains built by our ancestors.
  - asdfasgasdgasdg 6y ago
    > Better choice of terms include "Intellectual Control Laws", "Intellectual Bureaucracy Laws", or "Intellectual Slavery Laws I'll go ahead and keep calling them what everyone else does, thanks. > However, it seems to be an unnatural state of affairs, I'm not overly concerned with what is natural. Many good things are not natural. Why not let the market figure it out? Because the market is known to be inefficient for the production of non-rival, non-excludable goods. Traditional macro econ theory suggests that without protection these goods will be produced less than they ought. There are other solutions to the problem besides government intervention, but the ones I'm aware of require very high levels of consumer coordination. > We are all putting grains of sand on mountains built by our ancestors. Then you shouldn't be too bothered about the restriction on handling of trade secrets by folks other than their owners. I mean if it doesn't matter what gets invented, who cares whether someone owns it or not?