4 ms·

> I don't see how IP rights translate into higher salaries? When a company can defend its IP, it earns more profit and can invest in itself more. One way to in

> I don't see how IP rights translate into higher salaries? When a company can defend its IP, it earns more profit and can invest in itself more. One way to invest in itself is to pay higher salaries to attract talent.

harles 5y ago
Other than small bumps to bonus multipliers, big companies don’t share higher profits with employees.
- unityByFreedom 5y ago
  Of course they do. Google pays some of the highest salaries in tech because they managed to become so profitable. I'm saying long term, profitable companies who want to reinvest in themselves will pass profits on to employees because they need talent to make their products. There are certainly companies who decide not to reinvest, and simply extract profit. They become the dinosaurs.
  - r4w8173 5y ago
    Do you say that at Google salaries increase with profits and are not capped by "fair amount for your location"?
    - unityByFreedom 5y ago
      No. I'm saying Google is able to offer more than an upstart company with no VC backing in part because it, like everyone else, receives IP protection in exchange for publishing methods. Sergey and Larry weren't born rich. By the way, I see you comment once every 3-5 years. Are you an alt?
      - eru 5y ago
        Yes, I already agree with the strict ability part. But eg just giving companies cash would also trivially increase their ability to pay higher salaries. But obviously, that's not really something anyone advocates for.
        unityByFreedom 5y ago
        > that's not really something anyone advocates for. Right because cash comes from government which comes from taxes which come from companies' profit. Cash has value because governments put some limits on how much there is. Of course, they do end up printing some and dilute the value. They don't just hand it out willy nilly.
        eru 5y ago
        You are right about cash. And even if there was a windfall, eg imagine something silly like a gold meteorite just falling down on the treasury building: there are always opportunity costs to consider. But monopoly profits aren't too different: they don't just fall from the sky either. An enforced monopoly like those granted from a patent works by restricting what other people can do.
      - r4w8173 5y ago
        Not sure what "alt" is. I just answer when the topic and my current focus intersects :)
        eru 5y ago
        They most likely mean an alternate account. Like an alter ego.
  - Jochim 5y ago
    Google literally colluded with other tech companies to avoid passing on those profits to employees.
    - unityByFreedom 5y ago
      That happened once they became a top-paying employer. You get there by paying high salaries.
- eru 5y ago
  They do, when competition forces them to. I guess one _can_ make some kind of argument about how adding government enforced monopolies, ie patents, increases that kind of competition. But it would have to be a somewhat sophisticated one.
  - unityByFreedom 5y ago
    That's right, it's a temporarily granted monopoly in return for publishing the tech. The argument isn't so sophisticated.
    - eru 5y ago
      Problem is that it doesn't really work. Most patents are written in such a way to be maximally defendable/enforceable in court, and minimally useful for reproduction. Often you need to pair them with lots of trade secrets to get anything to work. The other common argument in favour of patents is that they reward innovation. And that might or might not be an argument that actually works. Patents certainly also hinder innovation, so it's an empirical question which effect dominates, and whether any net beneficial effect is big enough to overcome our basic economic presumption against encouraging monopolies.
      - unityByFreedom 5y ago
        Patents do not hinder innovation. Without them, the richest companies would steal every new idea that showed promise.
        eru 5y ago
        Why only the richest companies? Wouldn't everyone be copying all the best ideas from everyone else? Wouldn't that be a good thing? Both in general and for innovation? (And even if only the richest companies did this, they would still have to compete against each other's copy-cat implementations of those ideas.) We don't necessarily have to re-hash this discussion, other people already had it, eg at https://sciencebusiness.net/news/79887/The-Great-IP-Debate%3A-Do-patents-do-more-harm-than-good%3F https://sciencebusiness.net/news/79887/The-Great-IP-Debate%3... In any case, whether patents help or hinder innovation is an empirical question that deserves study! Instead of just assuming that they _must_ encourage innovation, because they say so. You can also get a start on the literature by following the sources of this Wikipedia article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economics_and_patents#Innovation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economics_and_patents#Innovati...
eru 5y ago
Btw, that defense means that other people will make less money (or that there is less consumer surplus).
- unityByFreedom 5y ago
  Not really. If you have a system that defends ingenuity, then new ideas will flourish, providing more jobs, and more chances for entrepeneurs to create. It comes down to this- people will not accept the state of banging their head against the wall over the same problems forever. We live to solve problems, and by defending new ideas, we give credit to creators and encourage creativity. You can argue that solving one problem creates a set of new ones and I won't disagree. Those are for the next generation to address.
  - eru 5y ago
    The empiric question is whether that system actually promotes ingenuity. It also hinders ingenuity, especially prominently displayed with software patents. > [...] we give credit to creators and encourage creativity. You can do that just fine without patents, too. Eg socially by recognising their genius. But also more materially via trade secrets. And as you say, people don't like banging their head against the wall over and over again, and that's true whether there's a patent system or not.
    - unityByFreedom 5y ago
      > Eg socially by recognising their genius. That's ripe for corruption. Social recognition would largely be in the hands of the wealthiest, i.e. the government in that scenario. You want individuals to be able to generate their own wealth so they can defend themselves. Patents, capitalism, etc are a means of delegating power to the people. Keeping all that control in the hands of the government is costly and less efficient.

harles 5y ago

Other than small bumps to bonus multipliers, big companies don’t share higher profits with employees.

unityByFreedom 5y ago
Of course they do. Google pays some of the highest salaries in tech because they managed to become so profitable. I'm saying long term, profitable companies who want to reinvest in themselves will pass profits on to employees because they need talent to make their products. There are certainly companies who decide not to reinvest, and simply extract profit. They become the dinosaurs.
- r4w8173 5y ago
  Do you say that at Google salaries increase with profits and are not capped by "fair amount for your location"?
  - unityByFreedom 5y ago
    No. I'm saying Google is able to offer more than an upstart company with no VC backing in part because it, like everyone else, receives IP protection in exchange for publishing methods. Sergey and Larry weren't born rich. By the way, I see you comment once every 3-5 years. Are you an alt?
    - eru 5y ago
      Yes, I already agree with the strict ability part. But eg just giving companies cash would also trivially increase their ability to pay higher salaries. But obviously, that's not really something anyone advocates for.
      - unityByFreedom 5y ago
        > that's not really something anyone advocates for. Right because cash comes from government which comes from taxes which come from companies' profit. Cash has value because governments put some limits on how much there is. Of course, they do end up printing some and dilute the value. They don't just hand it out willy nilly.
        eru 5y ago
        You are right about cash. And even if there was a windfall, eg imagine something silly like a gold meteorite just falling down on the treasury building: there are always opportunity costs to consider. But monopoly profits aren't too different: they don't just fall from the sky either. An enforced monopoly like those granted from a patent works by restricting what other people can do.
    - r4w8173 5y ago
      Not sure what "alt" is. I just answer when the topic and my current focus intersects :)
      - eru 5y ago
        They most likely mean an alternate account. Like an alter ego.
- Jochim 5y ago
  Google literally colluded with other tech companies to avoid passing on those profits to employees.
  - unityByFreedom 5y ago
    That happened once they became a top-paying employer. You get there by paying high salaries.
eru 5y ago
They do, when competition forces them to. I guess one _can_ make some kind of argument about how adding government enforced monopolies, ie patents, increases that kind of competition. But it would have to be a somewhat sophisticated one.
- unityByFreedom 5y ago
  That's right, it's a temporarily granted monopoly in return for publishing the tech. The argument isn't so sophisticated.
  - eru 5y ago
    Problem is that it doesn't really work. Most patents are written in such a way to be maximally defendable/enforceable in court, and minimally useful for reproduction. Often you need to pair them with lots of trade secrets to get anything to work. The other common argument in favour of patents is that they reward innovation. And that might or might not be an argument that actually works. Patents certainly also hinder innovation, so it's an empirical question which effect dominates, and whether any net beneficial effect is big enough to overcome our basic economic presumption against encouraging monopolies.
    - unityByFreedom 5y ago
      Patents do not hinder innovation. Without them, the richest companies would steal every new idea that showed promise.
      - eru 5y ago
        Why only the richest companies? Wouldn't everyone be copying all the best ideas from everyone else? Wouldn't that be a good thing? Both in general and for innovation? (And even if only the richest companies did this, they would still have to compete against each other's copy-cat implementations of those ideas.) We don't necessarily have to re-hash this discussion, other people already had it, eg at https://sciencebusiness.net/news/79887/The-Great-IP-Debate%3A-Do-patents-do-more-harm-than-good%3F https://sciencebusiness.net/news/79887/The-Great-IP-Debate%3... In any case, whether patents help or hinder innovation is an empirical question that deserves study! Instead of just assuming that they _must_ encourage innovation, because they say so. You can also get a start on the literature by following the sources of this Wikipedia article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economics_and_patents#Innovation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economics_and_patents#Innovati...

eru 5y ago

Btw, that defense means that other people will make less money (or that there is less consumer surplus).

unityByFreedom 5y ago
Not really. If you have a system that defends ingenuity, then new ideas will flourish, providing more jobs, and more chances for entrepeneurs to create. It comes down to this- people will not accept the state of banging their head against the wall over the same problems forever. We live to solve problems, and by defending new ideas, we give credit to creators and encourage creativity. You can argue that solving one problem creates a set of new ones and I won't disagree. Those are for the next generation to address.
- eru 5y ago
  The empiric question is whether that system actually promotes ingenuity. It also hinders ingenuity, especially prominently displayed with software patents. > [...] we give credit to creators and encourage creativity. You can do that just fine without patents, too. Eg socially by recognising their genius. But also more materially via trade secrets. And as you say, people don't like banging their head against the wall over and over again, and that's true whether there's a patent system or not.
  - unityByFreedom 5y ago
    > Eg socially by recognising their genius. That's ripe for corruption. Social recognition would largely be in the hands of the wealthiest, i.e. the government in that scenario. You want individuals to be able to generate their own wealth so they can defend themselves. Patents, capitalism, etc are a means of delegating power to the people. Keeping all that control in the hands of the government is costly and less efficient.