And it should obviously vary on the thing we're talking about. Copyrights, Trademarks, Patents, and Software Patents are entirely different things. General "IP" is a lawyer invention.
What I really want to see is the removal of IP as a protected asset that can be traded. I only want the original creator (a human, not a corporation) to get exclusivity for their work. They can license it to people/companies while alive, and MAYBE assign a beneficiary upon death that gets some temporary exclusive rights to it, but that's it.
My solution for R&D teams and commissioned work is that your contract with employees would cover that. You'd require the inventor to grant the company exclusive license to the product. Also patents are attributed to whoever submits them, and multiple people at the company can share credit for the invention. You'd make it understood what will happen in employment contracts.
It only falls apart in the unlikely scenario that all the listed creator(s) drop dead shortly after the invention, before the company had time to recoup their investment.
I think S. Korea had something similar, but government corruption and greed got the best of them. Samsung IP was supposed to go public domain when the founder died. They could not let that happen.
Patent law doesn't necessarily prevent that scenario today. If you're a small company and a big company clones/steals your patented tech, they'll just drag the lawsuit on as long as possible in an attempt to bankrupt you.
Or some Chinese firm will do it, and you'll have to bank on Customs seizing the shipments of infringing product as they're imported. That's something big companies have trouble doing let alone small-timers.
There is plenty of reason for invention. Make life better. That's the incentive. When money is the driver of incentive in society you're already starting from a complete wrong position. IP law actually stiffles invention and is far from fair. Just because I invented an idea 1 second faster than when you would have invented it (an exaggeration) doesn't mean I should get 10-15 years of a monopoly on it.
People will still invent things. Oh maybe they wouldn't invent mindless music and stupid tv shows and movies and other degenerate things but actual beneficial industrial innovation would still be invented because they improve productivity and efficiency. People would still make art and stories and some plays and movies etc... Because it's not about the money. I think you'd see less media but more quality media.
If you work to develop something that makes Amazon better, first of all that's Amazon's property, didn't you read your employer's agreement?
Anyway, yeah you do it to get promoted in the company and a higher paying job. You do it to reduce your workload. My first job I got out of university I automated everything I could and ended up turning a 10 hour job into a 2 hour job then I played video games and watched football at work for the remainder of the 10 hour shift.
I'm not a commie but I'm against profit being the driving force of a society. Morality and striving toward being moral should be the main goal. People should want to invent because that's a reflection of their good character. Lazy dumb slobs with poor moral values should just get shit jobs anyway. They aren't going to invent anything anyway.
I mean, it fundamentally IS NOT actually a “free market”, and never has been…
I’m no “capitalist fundamentalist”, but if you think that what currently exists is anything BUT crony capitalism/monopolies with a few extra steps, I have news for you, AoV…
It's weird that Intel is full Feminine Way but not AMD.
Siri, who is the CEO of AMD?
I kind of agree, but in a true free market, wouldn't companies exist to hire the unjabbed for their talents?
That will really depend. My broader point is that it's absurd that a company has anything at all to demand from its workers regarding their personal decisions.
I'm surprised that you think AMD doesn't. But there is an economic reason for it, if it is true. They probably can't afford to mistreat their employees as much as Intel, as Intel can just throw money at people, while AMD has its asabiyya.
Hell, even in this market, won't they just go work for Qualcomm or AMD?
The power of these companies is much greater than is yours. They can just team up and decide that they're going to do something, and there's nothing that you can do about it.
If you claim to know anything about PCs, yes. They are the main competitor to Intel for commodity x86 architecture processors and were the original developer of the 64-bit instruction set for the x86 architecture in the early 2000s.
Edit: at the time, Intel thought the x86 instruction set was obsolete, so its strategy was to migrate to 64-bit with a new instruction set called Itanium. However they had trouble gaining adoption, and with AMD releasing their 64-bit x86 processors that pretty much killed Itanium for anything but niche applications. Until Intel released their own 64-bit CPUs, AMD was the supplier for x86 processors if you were doing something that required a lot of memory.
20 years ago the Intel processors we all use were starting to run up against fundamental limits as to how much memory programs could use. Most things were fine, but if you were editing large videos and photos it was a problem. Intel looked at that problem and said "let's design a new processor that isn't compatible with anything else, and we'll use emulators to make all the old software compatible." AMD looked at the problem and said "let's update these processors we already have so programs can use more memory, without affecting old programs that don't need it".
AMD won, and it took Intel about a year to release something that was compatible but inferior to what AMD was selling.
That's right, make it unbearable for the free thinkers to remain employed with you. It's not like places like Texas and here in Florida are investing in tech sector jobs and tech startups to counter California and foreign sources, providing incentives for people in the tech sector to come live, work, and found companies here. Nope, not at all. These are not the droids you are looking for.
I hope this sort of thing leads people to reconsider free market fundamentalism.
These giant corporations are not your friend.
To have a real free market, we need to significantly weaken IP protections
Remove all IP laws tbh. It would lead to a better outcome.
And it should obviously vary on the thing we're talking about. Copyrights, Trademarks, Patents, and Software Patents are entirely different things. General "IP" is a lawyer invention.
What I really want to see is the removal of IP as a protected asset that can be traded. I only want the original creator (a human, not a corporation) to get exclusivity for their work. They can license it to people/companies while alive, and MAYBE assign a beneficiary upon death that gets some temporary exclusive rights to it, but that's it.
My solution for R&D teams and commissioned work is that your contract with employees would cover that. You'd require the inventor to grant the company exclusive license to the product. Also patents are attributed to whoever submits them, and multiple people at the company can share credit for the invention. You'd make it understood what will happen in employment contracts.
It only falls apart in the unlikely scenario that all the listed creator(s) drop dead shortly after the invention, before the company had time to recoup their investment.
I think S. Korea had something similar, but government corruption and greed got the best of them. Samsung IP was supposed to go public domain when the founder died. They could not let that happen.
Patent law doesn't necessarily prevent that scenario today. If you're a small company and a big company clones/steals your patented tech, they'll just drag the lawsuit on as long as possible in an attempt to bankrupt you.
Or some Chinese firm will do it, and you'll have to bank on Customs seizing the shipments of infringing product as they're imported. That's something big companies have trouble doing let alone small-timers.
There is plenty of reason for invention. Make life better. That's the incentive. When money is the driver of incentive in society you're already starting from a complete wrong position. IP law actually stiffles invention and is far from fair. Just because I invented an idea 1 second faster than when you would have invented it (an exaggeration) doesn't mean I should get 10-15 years of a monopoly on it.
People will still invent things. Oh maybe they wouldn't invent mindless music and stupid tv shows and movies and other degenerate things but actual beneficial industrial innovation would still be invented because they improve productivity and efficiency. People would still make art and stories and some plays and movies etc... Because it's not about the money. I think you'd see less media but more quality media.
If you work to develop something that makes Amazon better, first of all that's Amazon's property, didn't you read your employer's agreement?
Anyway, yeah you do it to get promoted in the company and a higher paying job. You do it to reduce your workload. My first job I got out of university I automated everything I could and ended up turning a 10 hour job into a 2 hour job then I played video games and watched football at work for the remainder of the 10 hour shift.
I'm not a commie but I'm against profit being the driving force of a society. Morality and striving toward being moral should be the main goal. People should want to invent because that's a reflection of their good character. Lazy dumb slobs with poor moral values should just get shit jobs anyway. They aren't going to invent anything anyway.
They already don't give a fuck about our IP laws. Its time to end the monopolies of the mega corporations.
China wasn't respecting them anyway. This would just give them some competition.
I mean, it fundamentally IS NOT actually a “free market”, and never has been…
I’m no “capitalist fundamentalist”, but if you think that what currently exists is anything BUT crony capitalism/monopolies with a few extra steps, I have news for you, AoV…
Surely you remember “too big to fail”, right??!!
I didn't say that what exists now is a perfect free market.
But I do see free market fanatics often argue that "business have the right to do X or Y to their employees". Here's where that gets you.
What is a corporation again? Oh yeah it’s a legal entity created by the government specifically to reduce individual liability.
We’re never had a free market and probably never will.
Until ESG scores make all companies comply.
Siri, who is the CEO of AMD?
That will really depend. My broader point is that it's absurd that a company has anything at all to demand from its workers regarding their personal decisions.
I'm surprised that you think AMD doesn't. But there is an economic reason for it, if it is true. They probably can't afford to mistreat their employees as much as Intel, as Intel can just throw money at people, while AMD has its asabiyya.
The power of these companies is much greater than is yours. They can just team up and decide that they're going to do something, and there's nothing that you can do about it.
Is it bad that I have never heard of AMD, and do not know what it is..?? 🤔
Holy shit how have you never heard of amd
Not my area, apparently… 🤷🏻♂️
If you claim to know anything about PCs, yes. They are the main competitor to Intel for commodity x86 architecture processors and were the original developer of the 64-bit instruction set for the x86 architecture in the early 2000s.
Edit: at the time, Intel thought the x86 instruction set was obsolete, so its strategy was to migrate to 64-bit with a new instruction set called Itanium. However they had trouble gaining adoption, and with AMD releasing their 64-bit x86 processors that pretty much killed Itanium for anything but niche applications. Until Intel released their own 64-bit CPUs, AMD was the supplier for x86 processors if you were doing something that required a lot of memory.
I… Understood some of that, I think.
Right.
This is rather out of my depth, I have to admit, haha…
OK...
20 years ago the Intel processors we all use were starting to run up against fundamental limits as to how much memory programs could use. Most things were fine, but if you were editing large videos and photos it was a problem. Intel looked at that problem and said "let's design a new processor that isn't compatible with anything else, and we'll use emulators to make all the old software compatible." AMD looked at the problem and said "let's update these processors we already have so programs can use more memory, without affecting old programs that don't need it".
AMD won, and it took Intel about a year to release something that was compatible but inferior to what AMD was selling.
But yeah, I don’t claim to know anything much about that sort of stuff…
I’m just here for the politics and occasionally the pop culture! I’m certainly not… Someone who has ever dabbled in building a PC, lol.
But I do still know what some of that means.
I'll just add that to the list of reasons why I've been avoiding Intel for over a decade now.
That's right, make it unbearable for the free thinkers to remain employed with you. It's not like places like Texas and here in Florida are investing in tech sector jobs and tech startups to counter California and foreign sources, providing incentives for people in the tech sector to come live, work, and found companies here. Nope, not at all. These are not the droids you are looking for.
It'd be a real shame if Intel somehow got hit by a ransomware attack in April...