4 ms·
....and I would say that if Riverbed didn't provide the equivalent support (lol) as Cisco or didn't have the complete integration solutions that Cisco offers, t
by seanp2k 15y ago
....and I would say that if Riverbed didn't provide the equivalent support (lol) as Cisco or didn't have the complete integration solutions that Cisco offers, then Cisco SHOULD win out. If you innovate and you're actually better, then you should win. If not, you should go out of business.
Isn't this what "free market" is all about? You can't have both.
- netcan 15y agoThe problem that patents are supposed to be solving is incentivising innovatoion by allowing them to profit from their innovation. The pro-patent argument would be that without patents riverbed would have been less likely to innovate in the first place and the world would have been less well off. I don't think this is a pro/against free market. Free markets rely on some definition of property rights. This is about making those definitions.
- sunahsuh 15y ago...and that's why I'm a bit of a socialist ;) Textbook free market theories make a lot of idealistic assumptions that just aren't true in the real world. The best product doesn't always win, particularly when your competitor sees easier routes to gaining an advantage than the slow, expensive work of improving its own product via investment in its own R&D.