3 ms·

Yet, those who tried to follow this ethos quickly discovered that the GPL requirements forced them to open up more than they wanted, including most things that

Yet, those who tried to follow this ethos quickly discovered that the GPL requirements forced them to open up more than they wanted, including most things that made their products unique. If you can't have meaningful competitive advantage or differentiation, it's kind of hard to make money.

Hizonner 6y ago
No, it's hard to make ridiculously out-of-proportion amounts of money, create artificial concentration, and deliver extended exponential growth of individual enterprises. And of course it's hard to even make a living when all your competitors are allowed "differentiation" and you're not. Which is what happens when a government sails in and starts granting monopolies. Copyright is an artificial monopoly. Patents are artificial monopolies. There are a bunch of weird people out there who call themselves "libertarians", but somehow favor the government creating such restrictions on people's liberty. They're confused and should be ignored. Trade secrets are perhaps slightly less artificial, but they are clearly destructive in an enormous number of ways. If, as lawgiver, one were to totally eliminate all imaginary property and outlaw commercial secrets, one could arrange a society where a lot of people could make a very nice living. It might be harder to become a tycoon. Which would be all to the good.
- zepto 6y ago
  I largely agree with you - we need to get past the notion of IP, but it’s a long where from where we currently are, and for all the problems with the current system, there are going to be problems with dismantling the IP regime. What is the first step?
- chrisfinazzo 6y ago
  Sigh... Go watch "The Internet's Own Boy", Aaron Swartz's biopic, which describes the arguments for and against copyright/patents, you'll learn something. No question, the system is flawed, but not irredeemably so. I still think it is valuable to be able to say (as copyright does) 'I made this thing, deserve to be paid if others use it, and can control to an extent how it gets used.' Ditto for patents - 'What I made is my original idea or is an improvement based on the work of those who came before me.' If, as I understand your argument, you are in favor of the libertarian view which advocates that the government create no law which protects these constructs, you also deserve to be ignored.
  - alexvoda 6y ago
    While I do not agree with the paragraph about trade secrets because that would represent compelled speach I agree that copyright and patents are noxious. Both have been innefective at promoting innovation through disincentivising trade secrets. The most precious knowledge is not released and copyrighted and patented. It is still kept a secret. If they were effective we would be living in a world dominated by shared source instead of binary blobs and obfuscation. Without copyright and patents, trade secrets are the main protection mechanism but at the same time reverse engineering is not restricted in any way.

Hizonner 6y ago

No, it's hard to make ridiculously out-of-proportion amounts of money, create artificial concentration, and deliver extended exponential growth of individual enterprises. And of course it's hard to even make a living when all your competitors are allowed "differentiation" and you're not. Which is what happens when a government sails in and starts granting monopolies. Copyright is an artificial monopoly. Patents are artificial monopolies. There are a bunch of weird people out there who call themselves "libertarians", but somehow favor the government creating such restrictions on people's liberty. They're confused and should be ignored. Trade secrets are perhaps slightly less artificial, but they are clearly destructive in an enormous number of ways. If, as lawgiver, one were to totally eliminate all imaginary property and outlaw commercial secrets, one could arrange a society where a lot of people could make a very nice living. It might be harder to become a tycoon. Which would be all to the good.

zepto 6y ago
I largely agree with you - we need to get past the notion of IP, but it’s a long where from where we currently are, and for all the problems with the current system, there are going to be problems with dismantling the IP regime. What is the first step?
chrisfinazzo 6y ago
Sigh... Go watch "The Internet's Own Boy", Aaron Swartz's biopic, which describes the arguments for and against copyright/patents, you'll learn something. No question, the system is flawed, but not irredeemably so. I still think it is valuable to be able to say (as copyright does) 'I made this thing, deserve to be paid if others use it, and can control to an extent how it gets used.' Ditto for patents - 'What I made is my original idea or is an improvement based on the work of those who came before me.' If, as I understand your argument, you are in favor of the libertarian view which advocates that the government create no law which protects these constructs, you also deserve to be ignored.
- alexvoda 6y ago
  While I do not agree with the paragraph about trade secrets because that would represent compelled speach I agree that copyright and patents are noxious. Both have been innefective at promoting innovation through disincentivising trade secrets. The most precious knowledge is not released and copyrighted and patented. It is still kept a secret. If they were effective we would be living in a world dominated by shared source instead of binary blobs and obfuscation. Without copyright and patents, trade secrets are the main protection mechanism but at the same time reverse engineering is not restricted in any way.