3 ms·

I think your argument ignores that such legal assistance would be for small companies or individuals whose enterprise would face an existential threat. Giving m

by scott_s 12y ago

I think your argument ignores that such legal assistance would be for small companies or individuals whose enterprise would face an existential threat. Giving money to a university or existing R&D lab would not have the same effect, since the enterprises I'm talking about are new entities in the economy. Because of patent trolls, they may cease to exist. Innovation in principle (such as that that comes from universities) is very different from innovation in practice (such as that which comes from companies). I agree that many people out there are "more deserving." But take, for example, these students and their professor. Their expertise is in patent law. I find it plausible that the most positive impact they can have on society involves applying their expertise.

rayiner 12y ago
> small companies or individuals To me, the for-profit versus non-profit distinction is far more relevant than the small entity versus large entity distinction. I have nothing against profit-seeking investors, but I don't think they deserve charity.
- chc 12y ago
  I have trouble understanding why that would be your line in the sand. For-profit versus nonprofit is a statutory distinction rooted in tax law. By using that to decide whom you will support, you are essentially saying that the Internal Revenue Service is your moral compass. There are non-profits that do nothing at all to better the world, and there are for-profit companies with a very strong sense of social responsibility.
  - rayiner 12y ago
    I think motivation matters and I think intention matters. At the end of the day, the motivation of a for-profit enterprise is making money for owners and shareholders. When push comes to shove, making money will win out over a "strong sense of social responsibility." It's a somewhat philosophical position, but I always perceive "corporate social responsibility" to be fundamentally compromised. Working within that framework always leads to elephants in the room, and things that everyone thinks that nobody says, and people ignoring where the money really comes from. For profit business needs to exist to make all the shiny toys we all enjoy, but public service needs to be at least a little insulated from business, lest it turn into farce and lip service.

by scott_s 12y ago

rayiner 12y ago

> small companies or individuals To me, the for-profit versus non-profit distinction is far more relevant than the small entity versus large entity distinction. I have nothing against profit-seeking investors, but I don't think they deserve charity.

chc 12y ago
I have trouble understanding why that would be your line in the sand. For-profit versus nonprofit is a statutory distinction rooted in tax law. By using that to decide whom you will support, you are essentially saying that the Internal Revenue Service is your moral compass. There are non-profits that do nothing at all to better the world, and there are for-profit companies with a very strong sense of social responsibility.
- rayiner 12y ago
  I think motivation matters and I think intention matters. At the end of the day, the motivation of a for-profit enterprise is making money for owners and shareholders. When push comes to shove, making money will win out over a "strong sense of social responsibility." It's a somewhat philosophical position, but I always perceive "corporate social responsibility" to be fundamentally compromised. Working within that framework always leads to elephants in the room, and things that everyone thinks that nobody says, and people ignoring where the money really comes from. For profit business needs to exist to make all the shiny toys we all enjoy, but public service needs to be at least a little insulated from business, lest it turn into farce and lip service.