4 ms·

Yes, but this will accelerate total R&D. Consumers will benefit because more competition means better products at lower prices. The same will happen for AI (ma

Yes, but this will accelerate total R&D. Consumers will benefit because more competition means better products at lower prices. The same will happen for AI (machine learning). The United States wouldn’t have gone to the moon in the 1960’s if it weren’t for The Soviet Union.

mantas 4y ago
Mindless consumers? Yes. Citizens? Not so much. There’s so much more to life than better product at lower price.
godelski 4y ago
IP theft doesn't really promote competition that way because the one that steals the technology gains all the advantage. They don't have to recoup their costs and by default have lower margins. That's impossible for the original creator to compete against. IP protectionism on the other hand does promote competition[0]. If an inventor is able to create and market a successful product than competition has to invent their own versions. Not through theft, but through innovation. This will mean they do things differently. It also means they will NEED to gain some edge (either reduced cost or higher utility or different niche). While there was a lot of theft in the space program, it wasn't the same as it is today with the current situation. The supply chain issues mean that innovation still had to occur. The current situation is more like you subcontract a company to manufacture parts for you and then that company says "thanks for the instructions, we'll now just sell our own." There's no innovation pressure in this framework. [0] Too much protectionism also does hurt. If intellectual rights are provided for too long than a technology that has failed to properly be marketed by the creators is lost to society. Similarly, too broad of protection can also hinder competition. But there is a sweet spot which gives inventors the first rights and isn't too broad. This promotes competition.

mantas 4y ago

Mindless consumers? Yes. Citizens? Not so much. There’s so much more to life than better product at lower price.

godelski 4y ago

IP theft doesn't really promote competition that way because the one that steals the technology gains all the advantage. They don't have to recoup their costs and by default have lower margins. That's impossible for the original creator to compete against. IP protectionism on the other hand does promote competition[0]. If an inventor is able to create and market a successful product than competition has to invent their own versions. Not through theft, but through innovation. This will mean they do things differently. It also means they will NEED to gain some edge (either reduced cost or higher utility or different niche). While there was a lot of theft in the space program, it wasn't the same as it is today with the current situation. The supply chain issues mean that innovation still had to occur. The current situation is more like you subcontract a company to manufacture parts for you and then that company says "thanks for the instructions, we'll now just sell our own." There's no innovation pressure in this framework. [0] Too much protectionism also does hurt. If intellectual rights are provided for too long than a technology that has failed to properly be marketed by the creators is lost to society. Similarly, too broad of protection can also hinder competition. But there is a sweet spot which gives inventors the first rights and isn't too broad. This promotes competition.