The Tiny Dot

[LoveIsTruth]

What IP currently works on the donation model??? I've repeatedly asked for evidence to support your rants and you provide none!

A lot of shareware and freeware programs, as well as many internet books ask for donations.

As far as popularity (or need) for the IP - duh! You keep talking about popularity.....so it becomes a popularity contest for IP???

You bet ya! Just like it is popularity contest in cars, cheesecakes or electronics, or any other product in a free market. "Popularity contest" is the engine of a free market. May not that shock you!

And the popularity of the intermittent windshield wiper patent developer was what? And even with patents it took how long for him to get paid for his labors by Ford and others....who were more content to just steal it?

He should have used a contract of first use with them.

If you aren't a very good writer....you won't make a living writing no matter what the rules of the game are. Your point is????

My point is if your writing is popular you will get a lot of donations. If your writing is not popular, even with copyrights you will not subsist.

Yeah sure....and pigs fly! Obviously you have never created anything of use....

Your assumption, as usual, is wrong. But I don't have to prove that to you.

My company survives because of its IP. If it weren't for the legal protections of patents.....no one could afford the first job (price of the technology completely wrapped up in initial sale....with no demonstrations)....thus it would not be shared..

Most often it is possible to do demonstrations without divulging the know how, but if not, you can have initial contracts saying "If x is delivered, y will be paid" etc. x and y can be spelled out in detail, before hand.

..thus it would not be shared.....and the whole freakin' world could pay more for exploration and its final products (your gold/silver, oil, natural gas, uranium, water, etc etc etc).

The progress of industry would have been much more rapid without patents. And invention would still happen, because of the benefits of the improvements themselves, rather than because of a hope of a government forced monopoly.

Makes zero sense....

On the contrary it makes perfect sense, and is just.

You are lost in your own twisted utopia.....

You are lost in government brainwashing and do not have respect neither for liberty nor for property, which are essentially the same.

please tell me about these musicians, writers, scientists, etc.....that are living off of donations.....

Not everyone has to live off donations. As I stated, scientists can live off contracts of first use, because of the benefit that companies receive in bing first to market. Musicians can live off of concerts in addition to donations, as well of contracts of first use for a play or a movie etc. Writers can have NDA's and non-compete agreements with studios before presenting movie scripts, etc. (which is already the case).

I've personally seen quite a few on the corners of Tijuana, Bangkok, LA, Tokyo, Hong Kong, Dubai, etc.....and I must tell you - their world sucks!

Because their stuff is not very good... They better find another line of work then. It's free market at work.

[Jason]

What IP currently works on the donation model??? I've repeatedly asked for evidence to support your rants and you provide none!

A lot of shareware and freeware programs, as well as many internet books ask for donations.

Who cares what they ask for.....how do they survive (pay the bills)? Is it off donations....or advertising....or spy ware (CIA subsidiaries)....or something else (bundling, demo version, etc)?

As far as popularity (or need) for the IP - duh! You keep talking about popularity.....so it becomes a popularity contest for IP???

You bet ya! Just like it is popularity contest in cars, cheesecakes or electronics, or any other product in a free market. "Popularity contest" is the engine of a free market. May not that shock you!

I lean towards value added instead. Popularity is related to whims....and I wouldn't think is a long term success model (hence structure of the Constitution to avoid popularity swings). Here today....gone tomorrow. You could compare popularity to speculation....those two probably go together pretty good!

And the popularity of the intermittent windshield wiper patent developer was what? And even with patents it took how long for him to get paid for his labors by Ford and others....who were more content to just steal it?

He should have used a contract of first use with them.

LOL....could have should have......of course if they flagrantly disobeyed one law.....what good will another do??? That's like calling for more gun control laws when criminals are already violating several in the process of committing current acts. Rather mute point and completely unproductive in terms of resolving the core issue.

If you aren't a very good writer....you won't make a living writing no matter what the rules of the game are. Your point is????

My point is if your writing is popular you will get a lot of donations. If your writing is not popular, even with copyrights you will not subsist.

I think that's been make pretty clear several times now.....copyrights only protect the value of the IP (prevents diminishing returns) at whatever value the market establishes. If people think the music cd is worth $10 at most.....you'll never sell a copy for $20k. The copyright is to prevent the value from declining to the value of the physical good (blank cd - .10 cents). The copyright protects the value of the material on the cd....or at least it's intended to if everyone is honest and respects the IP. Impossible to enforce ethics!

Of course if no one respects the IP.....then the creator/inventor will not subsist period as the value will be destroyed upon public release. Thus that will never happen!

Yeah sure....and pigs fly! Obviously you have never created anything of use....

Your assumption, as usual, is wrong. But I don't have to prove that to you.

LOL...not surprised!

My company survives because of its IP. If it weren't for the legal protections of patents.....no one could afford the first job (price of the technology completely wrapped up in initial sale....with no demonstrations)....thus it would not be shared..

Most often it is possible to do demonstrations without divulging the know how, but if not, you can have initial contracts saying "If x is delivered, y will be paid" etc. x and y can be spelled out in detail, before hand.

Obviously you did not read and understand. No initial buyer is going to pay for the technology all by themselves. The buyer will not see return on investment.....thus they do not invest. My neighbor can contract out for a music cd he produced.....but who's going to pay $50k for one music cd......especially for a cd that will shortly be worthless due to flagrant copying that changes the inherent value to the cost of a blank cd and the time to make the copy. No one will pay him and no one will pay anyone (company) who is willing to pay him.

In my particular case - no single mining/drilling/exploration company is going to pay the company the millions of dollars of development costs (plus a small profit)....for one single project or even a single company. Without IP protection no one would invest and the IP would never get developed. And everyone in the world would pay more for those commodities.....if they could get them at all. Basically puts you back in the dark ages....

If the inherent value (labor and development costs) goes to zero or nearly zero after the 1st transaction......all of the costs must be born by the 1st transaction. Why would anyone pay that value when that value will go to zero or nearly zero shortly after that transaction?

Therefore it doesn't happen!!! It doesn't happen and no one benefits from the IP because its either never developed or never enters the market place. Why spend years doing research if there is never a pay off? Why go to school period? If my MBA is only worth the cost of ink and paper......why get one?

Would you buy a car for $30k that as soon as you drive it off the lot is worth $1.50 (rough cost for reproducing a music cd)? And not only is it worth a $1.50 but you will never obtain more than $1.50 in value for its use? - i.e. can't sell it to anyone else for more than $1.50.

Ain't gonna happen!

Patents and copyrights protect the value of the IP....thus preserving the potential return on investment such that the investment can be spread over multiple buyers versus one single buyer.

Think utilities....if you could only sell electricity to the 1st customer in the line....and had to recoup the investment for the dam and reservoir from that initial buyer.....and all subsequent buyers got the electricity for the cost of power line from initial customer to themselves.....Would your dam ever get built? Who's going to step up to the plate to be the initial buyer?

..thus it would not be shared.....and the whole freakin' world could pay more for exploration and its final products (your gold/silver, oil, natural gas, uranium, water, etc etc etc).

The progress of industry would have been much more rapid without patents. And invention would still happen, because of the benefits of the improvements themselves, rather than because of a hope of a government forced monopoly.

How in the world can it progress if no one invests??? Show me an investor that invests to lose money for the masses......besides the government (which you now support despite your statements to the contrary as it is the only means possible to make the investment - by force). But that's pretty much what you are pushing - communism.

Any examples of societies that have prospered faster without protection of intellectual property? China doesn't count since its artificially pumped up by the bankers - and they just steal technology rather than develop it themselves. Always playing catch-up.....

Makes zero sense....

On the contrary it makes perfect sense, and is just.

I sure can't fathom you perceive that but....To each their own!

You are lost in your own twisted utopia.....

You are lost in government brainwashing and do not have respect neither for liberty nor for property, which are essentially the same.

LOL.....oh sure now its the government brainwashing.....how about just some plain ol common sense! Flip a light switch recently? Think of anything that you use that doesn't involve some IP? A way that something would come to exist without investment? Or if you are willing to step up to the plate and be the initial investor?

please tell me about these musicians, writers, scientists, etc.....that are living off of donations.....

Not everyone has to live off donations. As I stated, scientists can live off contracts of first use, because of the benefit that companies receive in bing first to market. Musicians can live off of concerts in addition to donations, as well of contracts of first use for a play or a movie etc. Writers can have NDA's and non-compete agreements with studios before presenting movie scripts, etc. (which is already the case).

First to market is worthless if day 2 your competitive advantage is wiped out and you can never recoup your initial investment. Therefore the investment will never occur.

Why would the studio pay the writer if they won't make any money off the production due to flagrant copying??? Why would someone pay for something that after they buy it is worthless due to lack of protection of property rights????

My neighbor will gladly sell his music cd's to you for $50k a piece....and you can then distribute the music on the internet to the masses to your heart's content!

I've personally seen quite a few on the corners of Tijuana, Bangkok, LA, Tokyo, Hong Kong, Dubai, etc.....and I must tell you - their world sucks!

Because their stuff is not very good... They better find another line of work then. It's free market at work.

Look in the mirror and repeat that to yourself......because your stuff isn't looking so hot either! Better pray you never have to work for donations....or have to live on any intellectual property you developed in your utopia.

FYI - there isn't a truly free market left on this planet. That is why those people are where they are......and about 90% of that is due to the US taxpayer! IMF, WTO, GATA, World Bank, UN, etc etc etc....

Count yourself lucky that you got in the lucky sperm bank and haven't had to play an instrument on the corner or sell packages of gum (or worse) to survive....

[LoveIsTruth]

No....its value added. Popularity is related to whims....and isn't a long term success model. Here today....gone tomorrow. You could compare popularity to speculation....those two probably go together pretty good!

Popularity is the engine of free market. It is irrelevant mainly only when government force gets involved, which destroys free market.

LOL....could have should have......of course if they flagrantly disobeyed one law.....what good will another do???

And your point is?

Hello McFly.....

It probably escapes you that this phrase was made famous by a dimwitted, stupid bully, who thought he was wise, but in reality was an idiot.

No initial buyer is going to pay for the technology all by themselves.

If a car company discovers a new process or feature that all the customers will love, being first to market means A LOT. Even if their competitors reverse engineer it, it will take perhaps another year before they can bring the same to market. That is how honest profit is made. Plus, if they don’t implement the new feature, their competitors will, and thus wipe them out, and thus the competition will drive innovation, without any patents!

Under your little utopia they will not see return on investment.....thus they do not invest.

I just showed to you that you are wrong on that. If they don't invest in R&D they will be wiped out by the competition (without any patents at that)!

My neighbor can contract out for a music cd he produced.....but who's going to pay $50k for one music cd......especially for that cd that will shortly be worthless due to flagrant copying that changes the inherent value to the cost of a blank cd and the time to make the copy.

He should either a) cut the cost of production, b) secure a contract of first use with a performer or movie studio, c) have his stuff to be so popular that people will WANT to donate to him, or d) quit the business and do something else.

If the inherent value (labor and development costs) goes to zero or nearly zero after the 1st transaction......all of the costs must be born by the 1st transaction. Why would anyone pay that value when that value will go to zero or nearly zero shortly after that transaction?

I already told you that a movie producer can contract with a movie theater chain a contract of first use, which can give them weeks of exclusive access, during which time a lot of money can be made!

Would you buy a car for $30k that as soon as you drive it off the lot is worth $1.50 (rough cost for reproducing a music cd)? And not only is it worth a $1.50 but you will never obtain more than $1.50 in value for its use?

That’s a very bad car.

how in the world can it progress if no one invests???

Already answered that: there will be investors because of a) the benefit of the invention vs. threat of competition b) benefit of being first to market.

Show me an investor that invests to lose money for the masses...

They will loose money if the DON’T invest, because their competition will make that improvement and wipe them out in a free market.

..besides the government (which you now support despite your statements to the contrary as its the only means possible to make the investment - by force). But that's pretty much what you are leaning towards - communism.

I undeniably showed you the irresistible incentive for companies to invest in R&D WITHOUT ANY patents whatsoever (threat of competition).
Therefore you are making a straw-man argument. I never advocated communism. In fact, I advocate the opposite. Therefore your conclusion is patently wrong (pardon the pun ).

McFly....anyone home?????

Watch that movie again, you sound like the idiot who first uttered those words!

LOL.....oh sure now its the government brainwashing.....how about just some plain ol common sense!

Your common sense is wrong. It is only “common” because of sentries of government abuse. I remind you that copyright and patents have their root in usurpations and censorships imposed by kings upon the people.

So funny and ironic how you contradict yourself in the same sentence.
Thanks for the laughing fit! Had my wife worried for a few minutes there.....

I am glad that your stupidity (in this point) and misunderstanding of what is plainly spoken, at least amuses you, otherwise it would’ve been just stupid on your part, without the added benefit of making you smile

(I’m just kidding you. I respect you for your fervor, however misguided.)

First to market is worthless if day 2 your competitive advantage is wiped out. Therefore investment will not occur.

Again, first to market in, say, car industry can translate into many months of advantage! Plus if they don't invest they will be wiped out by the competition. So these are TWO very good reasons to invest in R&D, that will exist WITHOUT any patents.

Why would the studio pay the writer if they won't make any money off the production due to flagrant copying??? Why would someone pay for something that after they buy it is worthless due to lack of protection of property rights???? You are nuts!

I explained that the studio can contract with movie theater chains the contract of first use, which can translate into many weeks of exclusive Hi-def access, which can translate in huge profits (but perhaps not as large as now).

Look in the mirror and repeat that to yourself......because your stuff isn't so hot either!

I am promoting correct principles based on eternal truth.

[Jason]

No....its value added. Popularity is related to whims....and isn't a long term success model. Here today....gone tomorrow. You could compare popularity to speculation....those two probably go together pretty good!

Popularity is the engine of free market. It is irrelevant mainly only when government force gets involved, which destroys free market.

LOL....could have should have......of course if they flagrantly disobeyed one law.....what good will another do???

And your point is?

Hello McFly.....

It probably escapes you that this phrase was made famous by a dimwitted, stupid bully, who thought he was wise, but in reality was an idiot.

No initial buyer is going to pay for the technology all by themselves.

If a car company discovers a new process or feature that all the customers will love, being first to market means A LOT. Even if their competitors reverse engineer it, it will take perhaps another year before they can bring the same to market. That is how honest profit is made. Plus if they don’t implement the new feature, their competitors will, and that will drive innovation, even without patents.

Under your little utopia they will not see return on investment.....thus they do not invest.

I just showed to you that you are wrong on that.

My neighbor can contract out for a music cd he produced.....but who's going to pay $50k for one music cd......especially for that cd that will shortly be worthless due to flagrant copying that changes the inherent value to the cost of a blank cd and the time to make the copy.

He should either a) cut the cost of production, b) secure a contract of first use with a performer or movie studio, c) have his stuff to be so popular that people will WANT to donate to him, or d) quit the business and do something else.

If the inherent value (labor and development costs) goes to zero or nearly zero after the 1st transaction......all of the costs must be born by the 1st transaction. Why would anyone pay that value when that value will go to zero or nearly zero shortly after that transaction?

I already told you that a movie producer can contract with a movie theater chain a contract of first use, which can give them weeks of exclusive access, during which time a lot of money can be made!

Would you buy a car for $30k that as soon as you drive it off the lot is worth $1.50 (rough cost for reproducing a music cd)? And not only is it worth a $1.50 but you will never obtain more than $1.50 in value for its use?

That’s a very bad car.

how in the world can it progress if no one invests???

Already answered that: there will be investors because of a) the benefit of the invention vs. threat of competition b) benefit of being first to market.

Show me an investor that invests to lose money for the masses...

They will loose money if the DON’T invest, because their competition will make that improvement and wipe them out in a free market.

..besides the government (which you now support despite your statements to the contrary as its the only means possible to make the investment - by force). But that's pretty much what you are leaning towards - communism.

I undeniably showed you the irresistible incentive for companies to invest in R&D WITHOUT ANY patents whatsoever (threat of competition).
Therefore you are making a straw-man argument. I never advocated communism. In fact I advocate the opposite. Therefore your conclusion is wrong.

McFly....anyone home?????

Watch that movie again, you sound like the idiot who first uttered those words!

LOL.....oh sure now its the government brainwashing.....how about just some plain ol common sense!

Your common sense is wrong. It is only “common” because of sentries of government abuse. I remind you that copyright and patents have their root in usurpations and censorships imposed by kings upon the people.

So funny and ironic how you contradict yourself in the same sentence.
Thanks for the laughing fit! Had my wife worried for a few minutes there.....

I am glad that your stupidity (in this point) and misunderstanding of what is plainly spoken, at least amuses you, otherwise it would’ve been just stupid on your part, without the added benefit of making you smile

(I’m just kidding you. I respect you for your fervor, however misguided.)

First to market is worthless if day 2 your competitive advantage is wiped out. Therefore investment will not occur.

Again, first to market in, say, car industry can translate into many months of advantage! Plus if they don't invest they will be wiped out by the competition. So these are TWO very good reasons to invest in R&D, that will exist WITHOUT any patents.

Why would the studio pay the writer if they won't make any money off the production due to flagrant copying??? Why would someone pay for something that after they buy it is worthless due to lack of protection of property rights???? You are nuts!

I explained that the studio can contract with movie theater chains the contract of first use, which can translate into many weeks of exclusive Hi-def access, which can translate in huge profits (but perhaps not as large as now).

Look in the mirror and repeat that to yourself......because your stuff isn't so hot either!

I am promoting correct principles based on eternal truth.

Well I reckon that about sums it up.....good luck in your Utopia! Nothing like $50 movie tickets.....of course the technology would never get developed to view the high res movies in your magical theater.....but let's pretend it did.....and now you have your fanclub Fegunz there with his video camera he slipped in to put it out on the internet for free....LOL! Hope you make the business work on the 1st night's viewing.....

[LoveIsTruth]

Well I reckon that about sums it up.....good luck in your Utopia! Nothing like $50 movie tickets...

The price of tickets in a free market is determined by demand.

..of course the technology would never get developed to view the high res movies in your magical theater...

You are wrong. People will still buy and use cameras. If camera makers do not invest in R&D they will be wiped out by their competitors. This is a very powerful incentive to improve your product, without any patents.

..but let's pretend it did.....and now you have your fanclub Fegunz there with his video camera he slipped in to put it out on the internet for free....LOL! Hope you make the business work on the 1st night's viewing.....

You can prevent people from bringing cameras to the theater. Besides, have you seen a hi-def, high quality, crystal clear sound boot-leg shot in a movie theater?

[Jason]

Well I reckon that about sums it up.....good luck in your Utopia! Nothing like $50 movie tickets...

The price of tickets in a free market is determined by demand.

..of course the technology would never get developed to view the high res movies in your magical theater...

You are wrong. People will still buy and use cameras. If camera makers do not invest in R&D they will be wiped out by their competitors. This is a very powerful incentive to improve your product, without any patents.

..but let's pretend it did.....and now you have your fanclub Fegunz there with his video camera he slipped in to put it out on the internet for free....LOL! Hope you make the business work on the 1st night's viewing.....

You can prevent people from bringing cameras to the theater. Besides, have you seen a hi-def, high quality, crystal clear sound boot-leg shot in a movie theater?

Pretend implemented and full speed ahead.....

LOL....cost versus demand. $50 high security (TSA pat down) movie experience.....$0 internet download bootleg.....until it comes out on video which then promptly goes on the internet for free for everyone to enjoy at home in hi-def, high quality, crystal clear sound. Gotta luv Utopia!!!

Of course the reality is...if the investment won't pay off....no one will make it!

Why would Kodak invest a fortune in the next technology if the competitors can reverse engineer it in a week? Why would customers pay Kodak a fortune for the latest and greatest when they can wait a week and get the exact same thing from a competitor for 1/10th the cost?

Face it - your Utopia sucks! There's nothing liberating about lack of protection of personal property - both tangible and intangible!

"McFly"....that's cute.....come up with that all by yourself???

[LoveIsTruth]

Pretend implemented and full speed ahead.....

In this case you pretend that taxation is no more.

Of course the reality is...if the investment won't pay off....no one will make it!

Why would Kodak invest a fortune in the next technology if the competitors can reverse engineer it in a week?

They will invest, because if they don't the competitors will implement the improvement first and put them out of business. Besides R&D cycle is far longer than one week, it could be many months, during which time a fortune can be made.

Why would customers pay Kodak a fortune for the latest and greatest when they can wait a week and get the exact same thing from a competitor for 1/10th the cost?

More like 6 month to a year. Why do people buy latest and greatest computers when they can wait a year or two and get it way cheaper? Whatever the reason, they still do it. It is the same scenario.

Face it - your Utopia sucks! There's nothing liberating about lack of protection of personal property - both tangible and intangible!

My proposal is great because it protects property rights, and defends freedom and liberty. Your status quo is the opposite of that.

"McFly"....that's cute.....come up with that all by yourself???

I see you recognized how utterly stupid your "McFly..." insults made you look, so you went back and removed them from your previous posts. I am glad to see that you understood how stupid it was to impersonate the idiot who originally spoke those "McFly..." words; the only thing that concerns me a little is that now you pretend that I came up with your "McFly..." insult quotes on my own!

[Jason]

Pretend implemented and full speed ahead.....

In this case you pretend that taxation is no more.

Rodger!

Of course the reality is...if the investment won't pay off....no one will make it!

Why would Kodak invest a fortune in the next technology if the competitors can reverse engineer it in a week?

They will invest, because if they don't the competitors will implement the improvement first and put them out of business. Besides R&D cycle is far longer than one week, it could be many months, during which time a fortune can be made.

Have you compared R&D versus reverse engineering times? Any real world evidence to support your hypothesis?

Even if it took many months as you suggest......R&D will be reduced to marginal improvements that have an ROI (return on investment) in less than a couple months....that's what you are left with! Which at the opportunity cost for consumers....will mean ultra tight margins. Instead of designing a whole new camera you mess with marketing gimmicks. There are no spare profits to invest for anything in the future!

Why would customers pay Kodak a fortune for the latest and greatest when they can wait a week and get the exact same thing from a competitor for 1/10th the cost?

More like 6 month to a year. Why do people buy latest and greatest computers when they can wait a year or two and get it way cheaper? Whatever the reason, they still do it. It is the same scenario.

Please provide proof!!! Original R&D versus Reverse Engineering times....

What percentage purchase the latest and greatest? What price premium are they willing to pay? If there is no sustainable advantage....where do the profits come for future investment?

How big of a dent has open source software made in the market? And how many companies (like my former employer Novell) have been destroyed in the process?

Face it - your Utopia sucks! There's nothing liberating about lack of protection of personal property - both tangible and intangible!

My proposal is great because it protects property rights, and defends freedom and liberty. Your status quo is the opposite of that.

"McFly"....that's cute.....come up with that all by yourself???

I see you recognized how utterly stupid your "McFly..." insults made you look, so you went back and removed them from your previous posts. I am glad to see that you understood how stupid it was to impersonate the idiot who originally spoke those "McFly..." words, the only thing that concerns me a little is that now you pretend that I came up with your "McFly..." insults on my own!

Again with the claims....where's the proof? Show me the edits to my previous posts....this site does track those things ya know (notes at the bottom of your post). I noticed YOU edited your previous post with the McFly comments 5 times....

[LoveIsTruth]

Have you compared R&D versus reverse engineering times? Any real world evidence to support your hypothesis?

Probably reverse engineering time could be less than full R&D, but still you have to implement the changes, and that may take months!

Even if it took many months as you suggest......R&D will be reduced to marginal improvements that have an ROI (return on investment) in less than a couple months....that's what you are left with! Which at the opportunity cost for consumers....will mean ultra tight margins. Instead of designing a whole new camera you mess with marketing gimmicks. There are no spare profits to invest for anything in the future!

Improvement will still happen. Big ideas will still be revealed to inventers. It will be like it is now, minus improper use of government force.

What percentage purchase the latest and greatest? What price premium are they willing to pay? If there is no sustainable advantage....where do the profits come for future investment?

Bottom line companies will still have to innovate to stay competitive, it is inescapable, and that without immoral use of government force in the form of patents.

I see you recognized how utterly stupid your "McFly..." insults made you look, so you went back and removed them from your previous posts. I am glad to see that you understood how stupid it was to impersonate the idiot who originally spoke those "McFly..." words; the only thing that concerns me a little is that now you pretend that I came up with your "McFly..." insult quotes on my own!

Again with the claims....where's the proof? Show me the edits to my previous posts....this site does track those things ya know (notes at the bottom of your post). I noticed YOU edited your previous post with the McFly comments 5 times....

Are you actually saying that you did not write “Hello McFly…” and “McFly....anyone home?????” and that I invented it in your behalf?!!

[Jason]

Have you compared R&D versus reverse engineering times? Any real world evidence to support your hypothesis?

Probably reverse engineering time could be less than full R&D, but still you have to implement the changes, and that may take months!

If you are in Utah and associated with the Tea Party (assumption based on your constant Ron Paul stuff)....then you know David Kirkham of Kirkham Motorsports. I suggest you go visit his Orem facility (west of I 15 and a little south of UVU) and ask him what the turnaround time comparison would be to create and machine a reverse engineered part versus one created from scratch on any of the popular 3D engineering software (GoCad, AutoCad, AutoDesk, SolidWorks, etc).....from what I know of it...its a couple hours versus months! Can also Google - reverse engineering laser scanner....for a variety of references on time.

Even if it took many months as you suggest......R&D will be reduced to marginal improvements that have an ROI (return on investment) in less than a couple months....that's what you are left with! Which at the opportunity cost for consumers....will mean ultra tight margins. Instead of designing a whole new camera you mess with marketing gimmicks. There are no spare profits to invest for anything in the future!

Improvement will still happen. Big ideas will still be revealed to inventers. It will be like it is now, minus improper use of government force.

Ideas are revealed all the time.....usually takes investment to implement them. Investment doesn't happen without promise of a pay off. ROI!!!

How does that line go again about wishes and fishes.....

What percentage purchase the latest and greatest? What price premium are they willing to pay? If there is no sustainable advantage....where do the profits come for future investment?

Bottom line companies will still have to innovate to stay competitive, it is inescapable, and that without immoral use of government force in the form of patents.

Wishing it were so doesn't make it happen. If the reward isn't there....they won't do it. Marginal improvements....at best. Most likely marketing gimmicks....or if margins get tight enough...limited to local production only. Go backwards a couple hundred years and you can get a glimpse of what that would look like!

Have you ever been in a executive meeting of a company (or board of directors) and participated in the decision making process on investment decisions?

I see you recognized how utterly stupid your "McFly..." insults made you look, so you went back and removed them from your previous posts. I am glad to see that you understood how stupid it was to impersonate the idiot who originally spoke those "McFly..." words; the only thing that concerns me a little is that now you pretend that I came up with your "McFly..." insult quotes on my own!

Again with the claims....where's the proof? Show me the edits to my previous posts....this site does track those things ya know (notes at the bottom of your post). I noticed YOU edited your previous post with the McFly comments 5 times....

Are you actually saying that you did not write “Hello McFly…” and “McFly....anyone home?????” and that I invented it in your behalf?!!

Did I say that??? Where's the proof according to your claim???

[LoveIsTruth]

ask him what the turnaround time comparison would be to create and machine a reverse engineered part versus one created from scratch on any of the popular 3D engineering software
...from what I know of it...its a couple hours versus months!

First of all, when reverse engineering is involved it is usually WAY more than just one “part”, it is often a system of parts. Secondly, it is not enough to reverse engineer something, you also need to mass-produce it and deploy it in your products. That may take months. (Not to mention the old inventory without the improvement that also needs to be sold). So it take considerable time to turn around, during which time the “first to market” guy makes a LOT of money.

Wishing it were so doesn't make it happen. If the reward isn't there....they won't do it.

The reward of innovation is that you stay in business and are not wiped out by your competitors who will innovate to outdo you. So your assertion that “the reward isn't there” is patently FALSE.

Again with the claims....where's the proof? Show me the edits to my previous posts..

Are you actually saying that you did not write “Hello McFly…” and “McFly....anyone home?????” and that I invented it in your behalf?!!

Did I say that??? Where's the proof according to your claim???

So you are not denying that you made the McFly comments. Then why did you say:

"McFly"....that's cute.....come up with that all by yourself???

after deleting all your McFly comments from this thread, and then trying to feign that I “came up with it myself”?

Are you lying? This speaks volumes of your intellectual integrity, but it shouldn’t be a surprise after reading all of your crooked nonsense in this and other threads! You’ve been caught lying, my friend! And everyone can see it!

[Jason]

ask him what the turnaround time comparison would be to create and machine a reverse engineered part versus one created from scratch on any of the popular 3D engineering software
...from what I know of it...its a couple hours versus months!

First of all, when reverse engineering is involved it is usually WAY more than just one “part”, it is often a system of parts. Secondly, it is not enough to reverse engineer something, you also need to mass-produce it and deploy it in your products. That may take months. (Not to mention the old inventory without the improvement that also needs to be sold). So it take considerable time to turn around, during which time the “first to market” guy makes a LOT of money.

You are not helping your theory out much......reverse engineering is at worst 1/10th of the time of original creation (more realistically 1/100th)....and as you point out its a whole system. So you spend a year to develop something that someone else can reverse engineer in a month or less.....who's going to win that battle?

Wishing it is a lot of money doesn't make it a LOT of money. Smokin' crack!

Again no proof.....just fantasy of the Utopia in your mind on crack!

Wishing it were so doesn't make it happen. If the reward isn't there....they won't do it.

The reward of innovation is that you stay in business and are not wiped out by your competitors who will innovate to outdo you. So your assertion that “the reward isn't there” is patently FALSE.

LOL....and if you spend a million to your competitors 100,000 for the exact same product.....that isn't going to wipe you out?

The price tag to develop a new vehicle starts around $1 billion. According to John Wolkonowicz, Senior Auto Analyst for North America at IHS Global, "It can be as much as $6 billion if it's an all-new car on all-new platform with an all-new engine and an all-new transmission and nothing carrying over from the old model."

http://translogic.aolautos.com/2010/07/ ... ew-models/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Think about that for a second.....how much IP is wrapped up in that process that if protect guarantees the transfer of value to millions of production units....and thus return on investment. In Utopiaville though.....those parts lose their inherent value after the first model is produced and sold. Who's going to buy a Toyota Camry for $6 billion dollars????

4 years to develop with a massive infrastructure of people and equipment.....6 months or less to reverse engineer with couple laser scanners and a couple engineers. The only thing that protects the former investment is IP protection.

BYD's success as a revolutionary copyist has drawn mixed reactions, but of course business champions seldom pay heed to grumblings from those they defeat. When carmaking, for example, BYD found that reverse engineering can cut the cost of a new vehicle by more than one-third.

http://english.caing.com/englishNews.js ... 1&page=all" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Again no proof.....just fantasy of the Utopia in your mind on crack!

Again with the claims....where's the proof? Show me the edits to my previous posts..

Are you actually saying that you did not write “Hello McFly…” and “McFly....anyone home?????” and that I invented it in your behalf?!!

Did I say that??? Where's the proof according to your claim???

So you are not denying that you made the McFly comments. Then why did you say:

"McFly"....that's cute.....come up with that all by yourself???

after deleting all your McFly comments from this thread, and then trying to feign that I “came up with it myself”?

Are you lying? This speaks volumes of your intellectual integrity, but it shouldn’t be a surprise after reading all of your crooked nonsense in this and other threads! You’ve been caught lying, my friend! And everyone can see it!

LOL....Am I lying?

You stated -

....so you went back and removed them from your previous posts

and I said -

Again with the claims....where's the proof? Show me the edits to my previous posts....this site does track those things ya know (notes at the bottom of your post). I noticed YOU edited your previous post with the McFly comments 5 times....

and

Where's the proof according to your claim???

Again no proof.....just fantasy of the Utopia in your mind on crack!

fyi - haven't you noticed I've adopted your argument style in response to this one....just playin' your game for a little amusement! I just believe whatever I want to believe and that's the TRUTH and LIBERTY and JUST and that's all there is to it.....your wrong - dead wrong - a liar - evil - wicked - can't handle my truth.....LOL......

[LoveIsTruth]

Improvement will still INESCAPABLY happen without ANY patents, because competition will still exist. Nothing you say can change this fact.

[Teancum-Old]

Just to get in the middle of this debate....

a contract of first use, which can give them weeks of exclusive access

LoveisTruth: Can you please explain how a "contract of first use" is different from a copyright or patent? I understand copyrights are limited to some number of years as well. Is it just the timeframe you disagree with? To me, the only difference between a copyright and what you term as a "contract of first use," seems to be the timeframe in which the author or inventor has exclusive right to profit from. If so, then why all the fuss if we all agree the author/inventor has a right to exclusively profit from his work (for a certain length of time)? Also, it seems that this concept of a "contract of first use" still disagrees with what you have stated in this thread about an inventor/author trampling on the property rights of everyone else, since you claim that they (the non-inventors/authors) are being prevented, by force, from using their property as they see fit (in copying the invention or work). Therefore, a "contract of first use" also abuses property rights, under your logic.

By the way, getting back to the Tiny Dot video, you never did respond to the criticism of the video: it does not describe reality. It states that the millions of dots are basically united against the Tiny Dot. This is not true at all. So many of the us million dots are seeking favors and unfair advantages under the hand of the Tiny Dot that many are thoroughly corrupt. The Tiny Dot video makes up the fairy tale that the only "bad guy" in the world is the Tiny Dot. This is completely innacurate. A large number of the millions of dots are also "bad guys" getting in bed with the Tiny Dot.

[Jason]

Improvement will still INESCAPABLY happen without ANY patents, because competition will still exist. Nothing you say can change this fact.

Your proof still doesn't back up your statements - that I went back and changed what I wrote! Obviously what I wrote was unkind (and after reading the Courtesy in Forum Discussions post).....I changed it PRIOR to your next post (otherwise my post would say it had been edited at the bottom).

I never said improvement wouldn't happen.....I said it will be marginal at best! How can you afford to innovate if there isn't money to innovate???

How many hundred million dollar movies can I peddle for the replacement cost of the dvds??? Same goes for cds, cars, and everything else we use. If you wipe out the value of the IP you are left with the value of the materials and labor.....where does the money come from to pay for R&D and future innovation????

[LoveIsTruth]

Improvement will still INESCAPABLY happen without ANY patents, because competition will still exist. Nothing you say can change this fact.

Your proof still doesn't back up your statements - that I went back and changed what I wrote! Obviously what I wrote was unkind (and after reading the Courtesy in Forum Discussions post).....I changed it PRIOR to your next post (otherwise my post would say it had been edited at the bottom).

I never said improvement wouldn't happen.....I said it will be marginal at best! How can you afford to innovate if there isn't money to innovate???

How many hundred million dollar movies can I peddle for the replacement cost of the dvds??? Same goes for cds, cars, and everything else we use. If you wipe out the value of the IP you are left with the value of the materials and labor.....where does the money come from to pay for R&D and future innovation????

I have already thoroughly answered each one of these, multiple times. Go back and read it again.

[Jason]

Improvement will still INESCAPABLY happen without ANY patents, because competition will still exist. Nothing you say can change this fact.

Your proof still doesn't back up your statements - that I went back and changed what I wrote! Obviously what I wrote was unkind (and after reading the Courtesy in Forum Discussions post).....I changed it PRIOR to your next post (otherwise my post would say it had been edited at the bottom).

I never said improvement wouldn't happen.....I said it will be marginal at best! How can you afford to innovate if there isn't money to innovate???

How many hundred million dollar movies can I peddle for the replacement cost of the dvds??? Same goes for cds, cars, and everything else we use. If you wipe out the value of the IP you are left with the value of the materials and labor.....where does the money come from to pay for R&D and future innovation????

I have already thoroughly answered each one of these, multiples times. Go back and read it again.

LOL....an opinion for sure....and not one shared by many obviously....if all fails erect the wall of "truth"!

[LoveIsTruth]

LOL....an opinion for sure....and not one shared by many obviously....if all fails erect the wall of "truth"!

Show me which of your questions have I not answered? I don't like repeating myself more than 3 or 4 times. So if I didn't answer a question, I will gladly do so. But if I have already answered it multiple times, I simply refer you to review the thread again. I think this is fair.


Thanks.

[Jason]

LOL....an opinion for sure....and not one shared by many obviously....if all fails erect the wall of "truth"!

Show me which of your questions have I not answered? I don't like repeating myself more than 3 or 4 times. So if I didn't answer a question, I will gladly do so. But if I have already answered it multiple times, I simply refer you to review the thread again. I think this is fair.

Likewise....I don't have the patience to go cut n' paste every question you've ignored so I'll quickly summarize to save us both some time.

If my neighbor spends $50k developing a music cd he can only sell for the replacement cost of a cd -
Where does he get the money to develop a new cd?
How does he get back his initial $50k investment?

If he stands no opportunity of ever seeing the return of his investment (not even considering profit) -
Why would he ever invest $50k to make the cd to begin with?
What external investor would invest $50k with him to make a cd?

Considering that there must be a profit motive (return on investment) in order for the investment to occur -
Where does the profit come from?

If no one invests in IP due to the lack of return on investment -
Will the IP ever get developed?
Or, at best, will it be restricted to small marginal improvements (100 year development cycle versus 10 years or 1 year)?

Can you please explain how a "contract of first use" is different from a copyright or patent?

Of course if you just rename IP with something else like "contract of first use" -
Can you please explain how a "contract of first use" can guarantee the return on investment for IP?
Why in the world would the "first use" buyer pay all of the development cost (IP) when everyone else gets it for cost of materials?
How is the "first use" buyer going to see a return on investment ($6 million Toyota Camry or $50k music cd that's only worth the cost of materials after purchase)?

If no one becomes a "first use" buyer -
Will the investment ever be made?
Will the IP ever get developed?
Or, at best, will the natural result be that IP isn't developed or constrained to small marginal improvements over an extensive time period?

Now that two of your "amendments" have had gaping holes blown through them -
Which one's next?

[LoveIsTruth]

LOL....an opinion for sure....and not one shared by many obviously....if all fails erect the wall of "truth"!

Show me which of your questions have I not answered? I don't like repeating myself more than 3 or 4 times. So if I didn't answer a question, I will gladly do so. But if I have already answered it multiple times, I simply refer you to review the thread again. I think this is fair.

Likewise....I don't have the patience to go cut n' paste every question you've ignored so I'll quickly summarize to save us both some time.

If my neighbor spends $50k developing a music cd he can only sell for the replacement cost of a cd -
Where does he get the money to develop a new cd?
How does he get back his initial $50k investment?
He will not get money to develop the new CD unless: a) He made a contract of first use with a performer, movie studio or the like that would pay him that much. b) His music is so good that many, many people desire to donate to him.

So if his music is not that good, he should find some other business to be in if he wishes to continue spending 50k per CD.

If he stands no opportunity of ever seeing the return of his investment (not even considering profit) -
Why would he ever invest $50k to make the cd to begin with?
Right. He won’t.
What external investor would invest $50k with him to make a cd?
No one will, because his stuff is not that good.

Considering that there must be a profit motive (return on investment) in order for the investment to occur -
Where does the profit come from?
The profit comes from being first to market, and from staying in business, rather than being wiped out by your competitors.

If no one invests in IP due to the lack of return on investment –
That’s false. There is return on investment. That return on investment is: a) being first to market, b) staying in business, c) improving your own life.

Will the IP ever get developed?
Yes. People will still invest in IP to be competitive, to be first to market, and to improve their own lives in general.

Or, at best, will it be restricted to small marginal improvements (100 year development cycle versus 10 years or 1 year)?
Most of the improvements done even now are incremental or what you call “marginal.” Great and monumental leaps of technology are not driven by money, but by inspiration, and are prepared for by small and incremental changes, which you yourself agree will inescapably happen even without any patents.

Can you please explain how a "contract of first use" is different from a copyright or patent?
Contract is a consensual, free will, VOLUNTARY, binding agreement between two parties.
Patent is an immoral application of government force upon people who did NOT AGREE to a contract. It is the essence of aggression.

Of course if you just rename IP with something else like "contract of first use" -
Can you please explain how a "contract of first use" can guarantee the return on investment for IP?
If you are an inventor, you can come to a car company, and say: “I have invented a process that will reduce your cost of production (or will increase your sales) by 5%-10%. I am willing to disclose this process to you (instead of your competitors) in return for the following compensation … (and you spell it out).” And you disclose the details to the car company under non-disclosure, non-compete agreement, so that if after reviewing your proposal they decide to reject it, they cannot use this process themselves as per terms of the contract they signed. It is all voluntary and consensual, and therefore, binding and just.
Patent on the other hand is not voluntary, but it is forced upon people who did not consent to it. Therefore it is an aggression against their property.

Why in the world would the "first use" buyer pay all of the development cost (IP) when everyone else gets it for cost of materials?
He will pay it to be first to market, and to stay in business instead of being wiped out by his competitors.

How is the "first use" buyer going to see a return on investment ($6 million Toyota Camry
He will be a) first to market with a product that people want, b) he will stay in business.

or $50k music cd that's only worth the cost of materials after purchase)?
I already told you that one, in this post.

If no one becomes a "first use" buyer –
False premise. They will become first use buyers, for the reasons I have stated.

Will the investment ever be made?
Will the IP ever get developed?
Yes, and yes.

Or, at best, will the natural result be that IP isn't developed or constrained to small marginal improvements over an extensive time period?
Already answered that one in detail in this very post.

Now that two of your "amendments" have had gaping holes blown through them -
Which one's next?
The only holes blown are in your logic and reasoning, my friend.

[Jason]

Likewise....I don't have the patience to go cut n' paste every question you've ignored so I'll quickly summarize to save us both some time.

If my neighbor spends $50k developing a music cd he can only sell for the replacement cost of a cd -
Where does he get the money to develop a new cd?
How does he get back his initial $50k investment?
He will not get money to develop the new CD unless: a) He made a contract of first use with a performer, movie studio or the like that would pay him that much. b) His music is so good that many, many people desire to donate to him.

So if his music is not that good, he should find some other business to be in if he wishes to continue spending 50k per CD.

If he stands no opportunity of ever seeing the return of his investment (not even considering profit) -
Why would he ever invest $50k to make the cd to begin with?
Right. He won’t.
What external investor would invest $50k with him to make a cd?
No one will, because his stuff is not that good.

Considering that there must be a profit motive (return on investment) in order for the investment to occur -
Where does the profit come from?
The profit comes from being first to market, and from staying in business, rather than being wiped out by your competitors.

If no one invests in IP due to the lack of return on investment –
That’s false. There is return on investment. That return on investment is: a) being first to market, b) staying in business, c) improving your own life.

Will the IP ever get developed?
Yes. People will still invest in IP to be competitive, to be first to market, and to improve their own lives in general.

Or, at best, will it be restricted to small marginal improvements (100 year development cycle versus 10 years or 1 year)?
Most of the improvements done even now are incremental or what you call “marginal.” Great and monumental leaps of technology are not driven by money, but by inspiration, and are prepared for by small and incremental changes, which you yourself agree will inescapably happen even without any patents.

Can you please explain how a "contract of first use" is different from a copyright or patent?
Contract is a consensual, free will, VOLUNTARY, binding agreement between two parties.
Patent is an immoral application of government force upon people who did NOT AGREE to a contract. It is the essence of aggression.

Of course if you just rename IP with something else like "contract of first use" -
Can you please explain how a "contract of first use" can guarantee the return on investment for IP?
If you are an inventor, you can come to a car company, and say: “I have invented a process that will reduce your cost of production (or will increase your sales) by 5%-10%. I am willing to disclose this process to you (instead of your competitors) in return for the following compensation … (and you spell it out).” And you disclose the details to the car company under non-disclosure, non-compete agreement, so that if after reviewing your proposal they decide to reject it, they cannot use this process themselves as per terms of the contract they signed. It is all voluntary and consensual, and therefore, binding and just.
Patent on the other hand is not voluntary, but it is forced upon people who did not consent to it. Therefore it is an aggression against their property.

Why in the world would the "first use" buyer pay all of the development cost (IP) when everyone else gets it for cost of materials?
He will pay it to be first to market, and to stay in business instead of being wiped out by his competitors.

How is the "first use" buyer going to see a return on investment ($6 million Toyota Camry
He will be a) first to market with a product that people want, b) he will stay in business.

or $50k music cd that's only worth the cost of materials after purchase)?
I already told you that one, in this post.

If no one becomes a "first use" buyer –
False premise. They will become first use buyers, for the reasons I have stated.

Will the investment ever be made?
Will the IP ever get developed?
Yes, and yes.

Um No and No.

Or, at best, will the natural result be that IP isn't developed or constrained to small marginal improvements over an extensive time period?
Already answered that one in detail in this very post.

Now that two of your "amendments" have had gaping holes blown through them -
Which one's next?
The only holes blown are in your logic and reasoning, my friend.

Well how can anyone reason with that kind of intelligence! Agree to disagree!

FYI - the musical neighbor is Paul Cardall....and he is very talented.....but I doubt talented enough for your charity model. In fact I can't think of an artist (outside the street corner musicians - if you call that survival) that could survive on your charity model.....at least in this present world! Restricted to live events only! But no one would ever hear the music so no one would show up.....left with the bar hopping gigs!

[LoveIsTruth]

Well how can anyone reason with that kind of intelligence! Agree to disagree!

FYI - the musical neighbor is Paul Cardall....and he is very talented.....but I doubt talented enough for your charity model. In fact I can't think of an artist (outside the street corner musicians - if you call that survival) that could survive on your charity model.....at least in this present world! Restricted to live events only! But no one would ever hear the music so no one would show up.....left with the bar hopping gigs!

Smart artists would release their music for free as advertisement for live events, or as building portfolio, that would prove their popularity to future investors (like a movie studio).


I bet you if Back Street Boys asked for donations from their fans, they would be swimming in cash!

All this goes to show that principles of liberty support progress and prosperity, not inhibit them! You do not need patents and copyrights to promote art, science and technology via immoral application of government force. Freedom and liberty does it much better while preserving the foundation of Liberty, upon which the survival of the society itself completely depends!

[Jason]

Well how can anyone reason with that kind of intelligence! Agree to disagree!

FYI - the musical neighbor is Paul Cardall....and he is very talented.....but I doubt talented enough for your charity model. In fact I can't think of an artist (outside the street corner musicians - if you call that survival) that could survive on your charity model.....at least in this present world! Restricted to live events only! But no one would ever hear the music so no one would show up.....left with the bar hopping gigs!

Smart artists would release their music for free as advertisement for live events, or as building portfolio, that would prove their popularity to future investors (like a movie studio).


I bet you if Back Street Boys asked for donations from their fans, they would be swimming in cash!

All this goes to show that principles of liberty support progress and prosperity, not inhibit them! You do not need patents and copyrights to promote art, science and technology via immoral application of government force. Freedom and liberty does it much better while preserving the foundation of Liberty, upon which the survival of the society itself completely depends!

I guess you don't follow the news much....Google rappers pumping penny stocks...

If there was cash to be had there....they would be doing it!!!

Only in the Utopia of your mind....!

[LoveIsTruth]

Only in the Utopia of your mind....!

It is interesting that you were never able to challenge the iron logic of my proposal:

• a) You as individual have no moral right to FORCE your neighbor not to use information in his possession (as long as he is under no contract with you).
  b) Since you have no such moral right you cannot delegate it to your government.

All other considerations that you are spouting are irrelevant in the light of these two facts, which plainly show that patents and copyrights, as function of government, have no moral right of existing.

[Jason]

Only in the Utopia of your mind....!

It is interesting that you never was able to challenge the iron logic of my proposal:

• a) You as individual have no moral right to FORCE your neighbor not to use information in his possession (as long as he is under no contract with you).
  b) Since you have no such moral right you cannot delegate it to your government.

All other consideration that you are spouting are irrelevant in the light of these two facts, which plainly show that patents and copyrights as function of government have no moral right of existing.

LOL....yes there is no disputing your "iron" logic. You simply believe it to be however you think it will be and there can be no reasoning to the contrary. Nothing wrong with that if its direct revelation from God.....but if its not then its just a hypothesis to be tested and treated accordingly. But you obviously don't see it that way.....so I agree to disagree.

FYI - we have covered that repeatedly. If the information was freely handed out by the creator/developer of the information....then yes you are correct. If on the other hand that information was obtained through fraud, lies, deception, disobedience to law, breaking of contracts, etc.....then that is another matter entirely and should be treated as such. If not....you are trying to claim that two wrongs make a right.

How does the law currently treat the possession of stolen property? How would your Utopia treat the possession of stolen property?

Patents and copyrights are simply government laws to protect the intellectual property and specifically the creator/inventor and those that contract with them to obtain that intellectual property. Were they to cease to exist....then the value of that intellectual property would collapse.....and in correlation with that....so would investment in R&D and the development of future intellectual property.