5 ms·
> but rather that it’s unconventional for governments to directly stipulate a technology aren't you forgetting that governments hand out and enforce patents/mo
by beckman466 5y ago
> but rather that it’s unconventional for governments to directly stipulate a technology
aren't you forgetting that governments hand out and enforce patents/monopolies/IP?
also it's hard for small groups to compete with giants when those giants have plundered the commons and more and more scientific and technological research is locked up behind their corporate firewalls.
at this point ignoring that plundering is wilful, not due to ignorance. [1]
[1] https://www.resilience.org/stories/2017-08-03/book-day-corruption-capitalism-guy-standing/ https://www.resilience.org/stories/2017-08-03/book-day-corru...
- throwaway894345 5y ago> aren't you forgetting that governments hand out and enforce patents/monopolies/IP? In general, "handing out and enforcing monopolies" is a bug in democratic governments, not a feature. So by way of your own analogy, this legislation would be another bug. > also it's hard for small groups to compete with giants when those giants have plundered the commons and more and more scientific and technological research is locked up behind their corporate firewalls. I'm already sold on the idea that corporations have too much power and corporations often abuse it. We probably agree here, but I don't think that has anything to do with this case in particular--all of the mainstream connector/power protocols are already open. We're not talking about smaller tech companies being unable to manufacture and sell Lightning chargers (or whatever the tech is called, I've already forgotten).