/liberty/ - Liberty

there is copyright in ancapistan, privately enforced copyright. polycentric law operating on a free market of what people think is moral

>>68507

>Our first tripfag

I ded

>>68506

Are megacorps that fast/efficient? Size brings on both overhead costs and information thermoclines. The question stands; I know a counterargument, but I don't know how strong or weak it is.

>>68506

No matter how large and evil your fictional megacorporation is, it cannot instantly adopt every innovation. It will first have to figure out what this innovation is, how it works (probably how to backwards engineer is), and how to actually use it for their products or in their production processes.

>>68508

He is not the first, but he is a fag.

>>68506

>established megacorp will instantly produce what you came up with more efficiently

Not a real possibility unless they've already come very close to figuring your research out on their own and were at the end stage of it. You can claim privacy rights in case of invasion. You can not claim rights to suppress the actions of others when they acquire knowledge without coercive means. We're lucky nobody takes the logic of patents all the way, and there wasn't a police state strong enough to enforce it early on in human development, or someone would have patented the wheel, or axes, instead of a more highly advanced technology a regular person will face no trouble with being prohibited to study, create and employ. We got here thanks to the failure and/or absence of patents for most of human development. Neither an Individualistic, nor a Collectivist approach to defending it holds consistent. As an Individual you have no right to control people's thoughts. As a Collectivist, the many benefit far more than the few

You can't homestead inexhaustible abstracts. There is no property principle other than "I have a claim to a non-scarce good and wish to enforce it to the mutual benefit of myself, and the enforcer, in helping him legitimize his tyranny in my name."

It's not even about who's "fist". It's about who can make it so the rest can not act.

>>68513

The ability to copy still reduces the incentive to innovate though, even if doesn't totally destroy it.

>>68540

So does the ability to completely shut down anyone who uses designs similar to yours. Having to stay ahead of the pack serves as a nice counterbalance to that.

>>68542

>So does the ability to completely shut down anyone who uses designs similar to yours.

How?

>>68543

because you need to reinvent things

>>68544

Well I don't know the exactly law. You mean to say if somebody copy-righted the fan (TM), I couldn't make a computer that also used a fan but as a cooling system?

If you create a material object you gain material property.

If you create information you gain intellectual property.

If you work for someone though, in the employment contract it probably will be stated that the property will go to the employer instead.

>>68546

Oh look its the "intellectual property is the same as material property" argument again.

Can you explain to us why disparities like the non-existence of scarcity doesn't change anything? I am really curious.

>>68543

Actually making a product is expensive. You get a much better profit margin sitting on various patents and suing anyone who uses something even remotely similar.

>>68548

This is why intellectual property is unnecessarily contentious for libertarians. Because there's the word "property" in IP, they've been tricked into believing that IP is necessary. I doubt they would still be championing it if it was called "Intellectual Monopoly" or "Pizzarights." But since it's so easy to socially engineer others by changing a few words, we're still having this idiotic debate, as evident by lemmings like >>68546 and tripfag.

One more aspect that just occurred to me is that almost every product has substitutes. Cars are a substitute for travel by train, milk is a substitute for cola, and board games are a substitute for video games. What this means is that it's possible to draw customers away from any of the competing substitutes. If you're the first company who has the idea of heating your trains and putting an onboard TV inside, then you are still better off than before even after all competing train companies have appropriated your brilliant idea for themselves. Why? Because more people will forego travelling by car compared to travelling by train now. In this context, it helps to remember that succeeding on the market is about total profit and nothing else. If you increased that profit with your innovation, you've succeeded, whether your competitors are freeriding it or not.

>>68543

This should be obvious. You have a new invention in mind, but you cannot make it unless you get a license because a similar invention was already made by a different company. Because your design requires the use of a very specific screw, it is effecticely shut down.

>>68551

I wish trains were more popular

>>68551

But the point is profits will always end up being zero, even if you do attract more demand.

If your innovation reduces costs, attracting more customers, you will end up having to reduce prices as well.

If your innovation increases customer satisfaction at the same price, the customer will be the only one to benefit, because you will be unable to extract this utility for yourself by raising prices (any attempt to do so sends all your customers elsewhere)

>>68551

>You have a new invention in mind, but you cannot make it unless you get a license because a similar invention was already made by a different company. Because your design requires the use of a very specific screw, it is effecticely shut down.

Why do we need many similar types of screws? That doesn't seem like a useful innovation.

>>68568

>But the point is profits will always end up being zero, even if you do attract more demand.

That's what profits always trend towards, but it's no problem. All it means is that you cannot rest on your laurels. Your innovation may yield significant profit for a few years, but eventually, you have to come up with something new.

>If your innovation reduces costs, attracting more customers, you will end up having to reduce prices as well.

It doesn't follow from this that your profits will be lower. Decreased production costs means an increased profit margin. The reason why Standard Oil could undercut its competition was because it could still make a profit when they would be selling at a loss.

>If your innovation increases customer satisfaction at the same price, the customer will be the only one to benefit, because you will be unable to extract this utility for yourself by raising prices (any attempt to do so sends all your customers elsewhere)

That's very unlikely. There will always be some customers who value the increased satisfaction from your product so much that they will remain your customers even after you raise prices. In fact, some will be willing to pay twice or thrice the price for that little added utility your product offers; this is exactly how luxury articles work. It would be very odd if they valued the increased satisfaction from your product so little that they wouldn't be willing to spend even a single added penny on it, but that is as good as impossible in practice.

Your scenario would only make sense if the marginal utility of any amount of currency, however small, was lower than the increased satisfaction from any kind of innovation, and if that were always the case. But that is completely fallacious. If you want to look at this from another perspective, consider this: The marginal utility of money decreases with an increased holding of money. It cannot be another way. A billionaire tends to value tends to value a hundred dollars far lower than some poor farmer will value even a single dollar. It's understandable that the farmer will instantly get another, cheaper product if you raise prices even slightly, but the billionaire? This brings me back to luxury articles: They are often not that expensive because the added satisfaction they confer is so enormous. Iranian Almas or Beluga Caviar is a thousand times more expensive than grilled chicken, but it won't taste a thousand times better you cannot quantify satisfaction that way, but you get the idea. The reason why it's so expensive is because the marginal utility of the added taste is much higher than the marginal utility of a few thousand dollars in the value scales of a few decadent Saudi assholes.

And one more thing, we're all consumers. We all benefit from lower prices. If the currency supply had been completely stagnant from the antique onwardes (no deflation or inflation), we could actually observe prices geting lower and wealth increasing across the board.

>Why do we need many similar types of screws? That doesn't seem like a useful innovation.

I meant it as in, someone created a special type of screw, your design requires it, so if you cannot pay for a license to use that particular screw, you can scrap your design. That's how it often works with inventions. Someone comes up with a useless design and does nothing productive with it, and keeps you from actually using that design.

My bad for not making it sufficiently clear that I was talking about distinct (albeit often similar) scenarios. In the first case, you being kept from making an invention because something similar already exists (even if it isn't used productively at all); in the second case, your invention requires some component that is already patented.

>>68570

>Luxury articles: They are often not that expensive because the added satisfaction they confer is so enormous.

>Caviar is a thousand times more expensive than grilled chicken, but it won't taste a thousand times better.

>The reason why it's so expensive is because the marginal utility of the added taste is much higher than the marginal utility of a few thousand dollars in the value scales of a few decadent Saudi assholes.

If I understand correctly, what you are saying is that rich people have already made all the big optimizations and still have money left over, so they chase after smaller and smaller optimizations.

>>68570

>All it means is that you cannot rest on your laurels.

It means there is definitely a reduced reward from innovation, because profits are quickly eroded.

> Decreased production costs means an increased profit margin.

Not if you are forced by competition to reduce prices.

>It would be very odd if they valued the increased satisfaction from your product so little that they wouldn't be willing to spend even a single added penny on it

They would be willing if you were the only firm. Since you aren't, any attempt to raise prices above the cost of production sends them elsewhere.

> someone created a special type of screw, your design requires it

Seems like a potential problem alright, but would at least increase research for 'components'.

And IP doesn't last forever.

Reliance on the free market to fund science is dumb given that there are spillover effects which result in science being underfunded.

/liberty/ would know this if they studied basic economics

https://www.reddit.com/r/neoliberal/comments/72bizn/how_do_you_feel_about_government_funding_of/

>>68591

Why don't you bring the argument over here instead of linking us to over there? Disgusting.

At least /leftypol/ has the small decency to link us to ACTUAL BOOKS.

>>68591

>there are spillover effects which result in science being underfunded.

As opposed to not having to really produce anything and being granted a monopoly? Truly, you are below /leftypol/.

>>68587

That's how you can look at it, yes. Over time, the optimization becomes cheaper and eventually, everyone can afford it.

>It means there is definitely a reduced reward from innovation, because profits are quickly eroded

Reduced reward from a single innovation, perhaps, but it also reduces the costs of innovation and creates an incentive to make more innovations. At worst, it postpones the time before an innovation is made or implemented, but that's counteracted by the greater economic growth in a free economy. If a company cannot profit for twenty years from a new invention, and if that means that it cannot make up the costs for the invention, then it will not abandon the project entirely, it will wait until capital accumulation has progressed more so that the costs of the invention are lower. In the meantime, it will invest in projects that are more urgently needed.

Basically, the timeframe in which you have a competitive advantage against direct competitors is lowered, but you still have a competitive advantage compared to indirect competitors that cannot adopt your invention.

>Not if you are forced by competition to reduce prices.

Even then. Sometimes, even if they want to, they simply cannot underbid you, like with Standard Oil.

>They would be willing if you were the only firm. Since you aren't, any attempt to raise prices above the cost of production sends them elsewhere.

No, not at all. Like I said, that's only the case if the marginal utility of the added utility is lower than the marginal utility of the additional price. That can be true or not, but there's no a priori reason why it should always be true.

>Seems like a potential problem alright, but would at least increase research for 'components'.

Sure, but that research would be solely for legal reasons, not to find a superior technical solution. If it ended up being productive, then by accident.

>And IP doesn't last forever.

Sure, but why do you think that the timeframe it lasts should be reasonable? Why not double or halve it? I believe you'll find the answer in time preference. Factually, you have protection of your (supposed) intellectual property during the time it takes for so many competitors to copy the technique that it'll be unprofitable for you to invest in it. In a way, then, IP distorts time preference.

>>68591

Rothbard wrote a really good book on that. Want me to link it?

Also, your argument presupposes a certain magnitude of the effects, but you do not explain why you suppose the magnitude. Nor do I find them intuitive.

>>68506

>So what's the incentive to innovate and make something new if copyright/trademarking/etc doesn't exist

Why don't you ask everyone who invented things prior to the Statute of Monopolies? They managed to make money.

Or you could look at modern markets. There are no patents in fashion or food, yet those industries are constantly innovating, because they have to in order to compete with other firms.

The more direct answer is first-to-market advantage, product differentiation, and reputation.

Also, it costs a hell of a lot more to copy something than you'd think. About as much as it takes to develop it in the first place, actually. And it sure as hell doesn't happen overnight. Even if you don't have to reverse-engineer the product, re-tooling your production line to manufacture it, branding, marketing, and making distribution deals takes a lot of time and money.

>and some established megacorp will instantly produce what you came up with more efficiently?

That's much better than megacorps just bullshitting up scads of patents and trolling everyone who tries to invent something, the way they do now. As it is, the expense of getting a patent and the fear of patent lawsuits, even if they're unsuccessful, discourages a lot of innovation.

>Then the whole market will come to a standstill.

Can you provide any evidence for this at all?

Embed related is primarily about public science funding, but it goes into economic studies on research and development, and the impact of intellectual property on innovation.

>>68591

Remimder that not all science needs to.be funded in the first place, and if some aspect of science is underfunded by the free market, it probably means society doesn't care about a study to see if zebra fish exhibit transgender behavior when exposed to Beyonce.

>>68620

> if some aspect of science is underfunded by the free market, it probably means society doesn't care about a study to see if zebra fish exhibit transgender behavior when exposed to Beyonce.

Wrong, idiot. Public good problem.

>>68597

I'd be surprised if either you or Rothbard have a single argument other than 'you can't measure the spillovers'. Which doesn't convince me that the best thing to do is act as if there were no spillovers and leave all science to the market

>>68627

I looked up "public good problem" because it sounds fake, and I found an article about the free rider problem which I don't see how it applies to here.

>>68628

>implying spillover is a problem to begin with

If the first person to discover something cant also be the best, I suppose he'll have to be content with only the insane amount of revenue that comes with being first, and maybe redirect those funds into a venture where he can also be the best.

>>68630

The science has great collective value but nobody wants to pay for it individually. Same argument as collective defense

>>68631

Spillovers aren't the problem. Lack of spillovers is the problem.

Wasn't the internet discovered by NASA? And there are many other cases like that.

>>68633

Not NASA. The US military. I don't know why I said NASA

>>68633

No, the internet was not invented by the US military. At least three research teams came up with the technology behind it independently from each other. The ARPANET was the first practical implementation of this technology, but then it was the market that distributed it.

To say that the government invented the internet is oversimplifying things. It was involved in one particular step, one that could've just as well been done by the market. Without the market, on the other hand, computer networks would be just another wasteful gimmick.

>>68513

>>68551

>>68570

>>68597

>Tfw you wrote all this down

>Tfw you talked about marginal uility, time preference and competition between different kinds of goods

>Tfw this is all that plebs understood:

>>68628

This is why the economy is shit.

>>68627

>Public good problem

Is a fallacy. For one thing, "public goods" do not satisfy the definition of a "good".

"More than a century ago, Carl Menger argued that four conditions must all be met in order for any given thing to be a good:

(1) there must exist some unfulfilled human need,

(2) the thing must possess properties which are causally related to the satisfaction of the need,

(3) the economic actor must have knowledge of that causal relation, and

(4) the actor must have sufficient command of the thing that he can actually employ it in satisfying the need.

If any one of these conditions is no longer met, then the thing involved ceases to be a good." - Larry J. Sechrest

For another thing, this so-called problem has been conjectured for a long time and no evidence has ever been provided for its validity. Nobody has ever given evidence of the market being unable to provide any particular good; merely a conjecture based on an artificially restricted conception of funding methods. All the classic examples of so-called "public goods" that supposedly could not be provided through private funding have, quite successfully at that. Roads, water, common areas, lighthouses, law, defense, scientific research, and so on; they've all been provided successfully through private funding.

>>68633

>The science has great collective value but nobody wants to pay for it individually.

Except this is not true. Private funding of scientific research and development is much more effective than public funding, and public funding crowds out private funding by a wide margin. This research is addressed in the video in >>68616.

>>68642

>Private funding of scientific research and development is much more effective than public funding, and public funding crowds out private funding by a wide margin

But that's not the problem though. The main problem is that everyone benefits form research, but only the person paying for it has to do so.

Therefore, industries would be compelled to not spend money on R&D as someone else will, and whoever does is taking the plunge so to speak.

Contracts for all to spend a set amount of money are likely, but likelier is that they'll avoid spending at all.

>>68645

You're in a dark room along with ten other people and you all want to read the newspaper. Do you not switch the light on because then you're making an effort but everyone profits?

>No, because someone else will switch it on

You won't wait indefinitely for that unless you have unlimited patience, which you don't. You'll still flick the switch if the utility of reading your newspaper now exceeds that of reading it in a few minutes and not having to move to do so.

In other words, time preference puts a limit on the freerider problem. You neglected that, and you also forgot that businesses operate to maximize their own total profit, not their relative profit compared to the competition.

>>68645

>Therefore, industries would be compelled to not spend money on R&D as someone else will, and whoever does is taking the plunge so to speak.

Show any evidence that this has ever actually happened. In fact, the crowding-out you just dismissed as "not the problem" directly falsifies your claim. If your claim were true, then public funding could not have a crowding-out effect on private funding. It has been empirically shown that public science funding results in less scientific research. That's directly relevant to your concern.

>Contracts for all to spend a set amount of money are likely, but likelier is that they'll avoid spending at all.

Again, please provide any actual evidence of this, rather than conjecture.

You've provided zero evidence for your claims, and have been provided with plenty of evidence to the contrary.

>>68639

One could also say that all the private sector discoveries could 'just as easily' have been discovered by communists. You're very dishonest.

And of course nobody says all the technology in the internet was invented at a single stage.

>>68642

>they've all been funded successfully through the market

Nobody is saying they wouldn't exist whatsoever without government interference. They're saying you couldn't fund them to the extent that would properly satisfy the situation.

>Except this is not true. Private funding of scientific research and development is much more effective than public funding, and public funding crowds out private funding by a wide margin. This research is addressed in the video in >>68616.

Missing the point completely. Sad

>>68646

>empirical evidence is wortheless except when it confirms my personal beliefs

>t lolbert 'intellectual'

>>68675

>repeating "empirical" enough times will make others think my reasoning is somehow not subordinate to my logical interpretation of it, unlike those lolberts who don't use facts at all. Everything I rationalize to fit my agenda is pure fact.

Empirical research of the public good problem

http://web.uvic.ca/~mfarnham/525/T4_emp_pgs.pdf

Note that companies will quickly learn to be

rational otherwise they will go bust

>>68675

Replied to the wrong post.

As far as the lightbulb goes, total profit isn't increased in the long term by reducing costs or increased general demand for the sector.

>>68677

>science is patriarchy pt 2: lolbert edition

lmao kys

As far as empirical evidence of the use of public science programmes I don't think there's any experiments that would prove it. You just have to look at the science they create and see the great utility it has

>>68674

>They're saying you couldn't fund them to the extent that would properly satisfy the situation.

Prove. It.

>Missing the point completely. Sad

That's exactly the point. The point is more public funding = less scientific research and development than would otherwise happen. If the justification of public funding is that it is needed to prevent the free rider problem from reducing scientific research, and if it proves empirically to reduce scientific research, then publicly-funded science is self-defeating. That is so very much the point.

>>68635

That's a kigurumi cosplayer isn't it?

>>68678

>As far as the lightbulb goes, total profit isn't increased in the long term by reducing costs or increased general demand for the sector.

That wasn't what I was getting at, either. I wanted to illustrate why the freerider-problem is a spook, nothing more, nothing less.

You're wrong insofar as increased general demand for a sector does increase total profit, short- and long-term. Reduced costs don't increase them in the longterm, yes, but companies don't plan solely to maximize long-term profits. That would be completely absurd because time-preference does not permit it. If an innovation yields a profit and not a loss, then it will be adopted, even if it will stop being profitable in six months. The company would be stupid to eschew six months of extra profit.

>>68548

It's about the effort needed to create it.

And there is non-scarcity only in the copies of already existing information because creating these copies is so easy.

But creating new information can require effort.

>>68683

>Prove. It.

You are the very same people who say that experiments in these kind of situations is impossible, and everything should be proved on an a priori basis. But the very obvious a priori case for public goods is not sufficient.

>that's exactly the point

No, the relative efficiency (dollar for dollar) between private and public isn't the point. The point is whether spending on public research creates value or not.

>>68689

>I wanted to illustrate why the freerider-problem is a spook, nothing more, nothing less.

And you did that by create a situation which isn't akin to the real world. In you situation you benefit from having the light on.

But in the real world you don't I'm saying you don't benefit by taking action to grow your sector.

>You're wrong insofar as increased general demand for a sector does increase total profit, short- and long-term.

Not in the long term. Profit always falls to zero. The quantity produced goes up, more firms enter the market, and profits fall to zero.

> The company would be stupid to eschew six months of extra profit.

Not if the six months of (continually falling) extra profits come at the cost of expensive research, which might not yield anything at all.

At least there's no reason to suppose they're stupid.

>>68842

this post has many typing errors

>>68842

That is a complete misapplication of the rule that profits fall to zero.

It's also bugnuts to say that organizations don't act to grow their sectors. The one responsible for growing the sector is directly the one positioned to take advantage of the sector's growth.

Advertising also occasionally takes the form of advertising interchangeable products in order to benefit from increased general demand. It's hard to advertise a specific farm's eggs, for instance. You can try, but your ad is still going over like an ad for eggs.

>>68845

>That is a complete misapplication of the rule that profits fall to zero.

It isn't at all. You have no argument.

>You can try, but your ad is still going over like an ad for eggs.

It has spillover effects, but your argument is dumb because the main point is to grow your brand.

>>68841

> But the very obvious a priori case for public goods is not sufficient.

You haven't made one. Make one and we'll discuss it. You've made a conjecture; not an a priori case. You have to establish why public funding is necessary to provide certain goods, not merely that you cannot imagine ways in which somebody could profit from them. You would have to show that in principle private funding cannot provide it; not that you don't think they would.

>No, the relative efficiency (dollar for dollar) between private and public isn't the point.

I haven't said a word about relative efficiency (though I think he mentions it in the video). I have repeatedly stressed that public funding demonstrably reduces scientific outcomes in absolute terms. That's what "more public funding = less scientific research" means.

>The point is whether spending on public research creates value or not.

And I have pointed out that it reduces value in absolute terms. If we suppose that scientific R&D is desirable, then empirically, public funding of it is harmful to that end. I really don't know how much clearer I can be about that. More public money = less science. Absolute terms.

>>68842

>But in the real world you don't I'm saying you don't benefit by taking action to grow your sector.

But you do. What's larger, one tenth of a small cake or one tenth of a large cake?

>Not in the long term. Profit always falls to zero. The quantity produced goes up, more firms enter the market, and profits fall to zero.

That is not how it works. If it was, no firm would ever improve its service, because durr, profits always fall to zero over the long term.

>Not if the six months of (continually falling) extra profits come at the cost of expensive research, which might not yield anything at all.

See? You're assuming a certain magnitude, and you assume that magnitude to be fixed. Why six months, not two years? (Like that other anon said, it's not always easy to backwards engineer something). The expensive research may have a trivial cost; alternatively, it may be expensive at the moment, but become cheaper somewhere along the line. Which brings me back to time-preference: Very expensive research would still be done, just not now, but later. That's not a bad thing for the eocnomy, because it means that in the meantime, resources are used to sate more urgent needs.

And when you can undersell your competition so bad that you make a profit when they'd make a loss, then there is no pressure for you to lower your prices. Or at least not as much pressure as you had before, or as the competition has at the same time. There might still be reasons why your profits would fall, but even then, there is no reason to suppose a priori that this would make your research unprofitable.

>>68846

>It has spillover effects, but your argument is dumb because the main point is to grow your brand.

That's your intention, not the immediate effect. The effect is not that people want eggs from Farmer Happy's Chicken Farm, they just want eggs. There's not a spillover (hate that term) to everyone but you, there's a spillover, period. You're flicking the switch so that everyone - including you - can read his newspaper.

>>68864

>That is not how it works. If it was, no firm would ever improve its service, because durr, profits always fall to zero over the long term.

I'm clearly not denying short term profits.

>You're assuming a certain magnitude, and you assume that magnitude to be fixed.

No I'm not. You're the one who brought up six months.

> Very expensive research would still be done

Nice evidence.

>>68864

>What's larger, one tenth of a small cake or one tenth of a large cake?

Your share of the sector doesn't automatically stay the same.

>That's your intention, not the immediate effect.

So you see how you can't apply the same reasoning to general research carried out 'to grow the sector'.

Advertising creates a competitive advantage, general research doesn't.

>>68842

>Profit always falls to zero.

No. That isn't true at all. Profits tend toward zero in a hypothetical market where supply, demand, and capital structure remain fixed over time; in that particular idealized case, price competition brings prices toward the cost of production. That's what innovation is all about. You have to innovate in order to maintain profits. Identifying that tendency is how the necessity of innovation and product differentiation is explained. Profits don't actually go to zero in a real-world market. That's not how it works. That's not how any of this works.

>>68914

I don't see how you debunked any of what I was saying.

>hurr that's not the real world

Is not an argument. Explain how that isn't the real world. Fucking idiot

>>68915

Could have something to do with it not being observable in reality now or ever.

The world does not remain static, nor does profit. It's in his reply.

>Profits tend toward zero in a hypothetical market where supply, demand, and capital structure remain fixed over time; in that particular idealized case, price competition brings prices toward the cost of production"

Practice reading comprehension.

>>68918

It's true that other things are changing but the key insight is that an innovation doesn't grant you long term profit on its own. That's the insight that the economic model gives you.

>>68919

No; the insight of the economic model is that in order to profit in the long term, you have to innovate. If you don't, then your profits will tend toward zero while companies which do innovate will refresh their capacity for profit. They make money, you don't. Yes, over the long term, each individual innovation eventually wears off as the market adjusts, but that just means you have to innovate constantly, and you're still making money in the meantime. The "profits tend toward zero" is the economic insight that proves why innovation happens; because eventually your innovations will be copied and you'll all be competing with effectively the same products, driving prices down and reducing your profits. The market copying your innovations is what drives you to innovate more. Innovation is just another avenue of competition. Why would anyone innovate without IP? Because the alternative is to lay down and die, metaphorically speaking.

>>68920

I have never said that innovation doesn't allow for short term profit.

My point is that if it only makes you profit in the short term, you might never bother to research, or anyway your innovations are going to be reduced compared to if you had IP.

>>68921

>you might never bother to research, or anyway your innovations are going to be reduced compared to if you had IP.

Can you read?

>>68923

Yes. If you can't admit what I said you should literally kill yourself. 'They can't make money otherwise' is irrelevant. If research doesn't profit them they won't do it.

Sage because you're a stupid nigger.

>>68924

>If you can't admit what I said you should literally kill yourself.

Says the guy who ignored the entire post he was responding to, which explained exactly why firms innovate without IP.

>'They can't make money otherwise' is irrelevant.

Lolwut? Somehow making money isn't important to a business? If you can't make money without innovating, then only those businesses which innovate will continue to exist

>If research doesn't profit them they won't do it.

…That's… wow. What the hell is going through your head? the entire post was pointing out that the research is profitable to them. Seriously; go read it. You'll find such memorable quotes as:

>in order to profit in the long term, you have to innovate

>If you don't, then your profits will tend toward zero while companies which do innovate will refresh their capacity for profit.

>you're still making money in the meantime

>The market copying your innovations is what drives you to innovate more.

>the alternative is to lay down and die, metaphorically speaking.

Every part of that post points out that each innovation produces a short-term profit, and continuous innovation is a necessary condition for long-term profit. In the short term and long term, innovation brings profit. The economic principle you tried to cite earlier is precisely the insight which demonstrates that.

>Sage because you're a stupid nigger.

You're trying to point a sage… at the guy… who's saging your retarded thread… and that's supposed to be a problem for me? You either are OP or you're arguing on OP's side, and somehow saging the stupid thread which I am saging is supposed to be a problem for me? You're helping me bury this dumb fucking discussion and I'm supposed to be wounded by that?

Aren't you just a little bit embarrassed? Keep digging; I'm loving this.

>>68926

>Somehow making money isn't important to a business?

That's totally what I meant!

Except it's not. I can't explain anything to you, because you are such a dumb fucking retarded nigger. Die.

>>68927

>you are such a dumb fucking retarded nigger. Die.

Oooh, edgy. I know I'm impressed. Now I think you're a cool person whose life isn't a complete waste of time at all. Please be my friend so I can be as cool as you.

>>68928

What the fuck did you just fucking say about me, you little bitch? I’ll have you know I graduated top of my class in the Navy Seals, and I’ve been involved in numerous secret raids on Al-Quaeda, and I have over 300 confirmed kills.

I am trained in gorilla warfare and I’m the top sniper in the entire US armed forces. You are nothing to me but just another target. I will wipe you the fuck out with precision the likes of which has never been seen before on this Earth, mark my fucking words.

You think you can get away with saying that shit to me over the Internet? Think again, fucker. As we speak I am contacting my secret network of spies across the USA and your IP is being traced right now so you better prepare for the storm, maggot. The storm that wipes out the pathetic little thing you call your life. You’re fucking dead, kid. I can be anywhere, anytime, and I can kill you in over seven hundred ways, and that’s just with my bare hands.

Not only am I extensively trained in unarmed combat, but I have access to the entire arsenal of the United States Marine Corps and I will use it to its full extent to wipe your miserable ass off the face of the continent, you little shit. If only you could have known what unholy retribution your little “clever” comment was about to bring down upon you, maybe you would have held your fucking tongue.

But you couldn’t, you didn’t, and now you’re paying the price, you goddamn idiot. I will shit fury all over you and you will drown in it.

You’re fucking dead, kiddo.

>>68880

>I'm clearly not denying short term profits.

But you are saying that they will always stay behind the costs of research.

>No I'm not.

Implicitly, you are. You are saying that the costs of research are always higher than the increased revenue from your invention. So if I program a new app, at a cost of say a hundred dollars, and sell a thousand licensed and DRM-protected copies for just a dollar each before the competition figures out how to crack my app, I'll still have made a loss. How exactly does that work? Or is that scenario impossible, because somehow, the costs of research are limiting how much revenue you can make? That's an absurd claim.

>You're the one who brought up six months.

I made it clear that it can be any number, in principle. It can take the competition six months to backwards engineer your invention, or a year, two years, maybe even five years or longer.

>Nice evidence.

Here's what I said:

>Very expensive research would still be done, just not now, but later

Here's what you made of it:

>Very expensive research would still be done

That's a false citation, plain and simple. And I don't have to show evidence, because I was referring to time preference. Be honest, do you know what time preference is? Because if not, then you should ask for that or look it up yourself or you won't understand what I'm talking about.

>>68882

>Your share of the sector doesn't automatically stay the same.

Does it automatically shrink after you did research? If not, then it makes no sense to invoke this.

>Advertising creates a competitive advantage, general research doesn't.

My entire point was that you don't need a competitive advantage. What you're saying is that if a farmer made such a brilliant advertisement that everyone on the planet decided to eat nothing but eggs the rest of his life, but forgot to mention his own name in the advertisement, he will not profit from it. Everyone else will, but not him, even though every chicken farmer is in the exact same position.

>>68941

See >>68921. I'm not claiming to know that the cost of research will always be higher than returns.

> And I don't have to show evidence, because I was referring to time preference

No, you were claiming to know for a fact they will do it at some point. I'm saying you don't know this for a fact.

Time preference is a distraction so you can pretend to be more knowledgeable than me by using simple terms everyone knows.

>>68946

>insists that innovation won't occur without IP

>can't explain all those times when innovation occurred without IP

>has offered neither evidence or a priori arguments for this position

>religiously ignores arguments and evidence to the contrary

>fails to acknowledge that making short-term gains repeatedly over time is a long-term gain

>thinks people have to pretend to be more knowledgeable than him

See, this is why I wanted to be your friend. You're just the best.

…can't help but notice you've reversed your policy on saging there, friendo. Wouldn't happen to have been embarrassed about that there decision, eh?

>>68949

>insists that innovation won't occur without IP

I literally disagreed with this in the post you replied to, but whatever. I'm sure the rest of the list is accurate

>>68953

So now you're amending your position to agree that IP is not necessary for innovation. Sweet, looks like we all agree now. Nice talking to you.

>>68946

>Time preference is a distraction so you can pretend to be more knowledgeable than me by using simple terms everyone knows

That you would think this says more about me than you. Believe it or not, but I actually wanted to make you understand. That was my primary goal. Not win an internet debate, nol steal all your precious e-cred.

You know what? Stay ignorant. If that's your wish, no problem.

>simple terms everyone knows

It'd be heaven on earth if everyone understood time preference. I still doubt you do, because frankly, you're a shit-tier economist.

shakespeare was working when there were no IP rights or laws

>>69214

there was no bittorrent either

>>69230

People still could (and routinely did) copy performance art once it was released to the public. Plays, music, you name it.

There's no intellectual property in fashion, perfume, maps, or food (to name a few off the top of my head) but those are still competitive and profitable industries, characterized by considerable innovation.

>>69232

this

>>68616

>Also, it costs a hell of a lot more to copy something than you'd think. About as much as it takes to develop it in the first place, actually.

<t. Chink

>>69232

>There is no intellectual property in food

The EU has corrected that.

>>69556

And? If you have a problem with the analysis, go ahead and make a case.

(Also, side note: what does "t." stand for? I've seen it around for a while, but never with context that would explain its origin.)

>>69558

What have they done? I mean, there's always trademarks and trade secrets, but this thread is really about patent and copyright. Does the EU have patents in recipes now?

>>69558

time for me to copyright the doner kebab

>>69561

t. represents Terveisin or "Best Rgards" in finnish

>>69561

Nations can and have patented certain "national foods" and you are not legally permitted to sell your product referring to them. The best you can do is call it something else and hope nobody notices. There was an inane article in the Bulgarian magazine "Capital" that Italy or some other nation might start selling Bulgarian dairy products: boza, lukanka, lutenica, Bulgarian cheese or whatever else, and claim it is "theirs". The whole thing is bullcrap like anything IP related. That's what you get with your brain on Etatism. Everything must be nationalized and taxed locally. God forbid someone makes anything resembling Bulgarian recipes (some of which aren't even unique to the country) and profits, because our politicians missed the deadline for the EU patent renewal.

Good thing Frankfurters have yet to ban everyone else from making hot dogs. We are LIVING the reductio ad absurdum. It's not just rhetoric, it's reality.

>>69571

*might start selling Bulgarian dairy products,

the following isn't dairy. Forgot to cut out "Bulgarian cheese" out after including it under "dairy"