BF2S Forums Redistribution of wealth

JohnG@lt wrote:

Edit - Btw, it costs about $100 to file a patent so that alone told me you were an idiot and not worthy of debate. Sorry.

Clearly you know nothing about patents.
It may cost a small amount to make an initial filing, after that the costs mount up for further real filings.
Having a US patent doesn't actually mean much, the US PO is so swamped they rubber stamp pretty well everything and leave it to the courts to figure out.

Really there is zero point in filing a patent unless you have several million dollars behind you that you're prepared to gamble on court costs, or you're so certain the idea is worth millions that you'll be able to find someone to buy it and back it.

To achieve the above you need to be 2000% certain your patent documentation is not water tight but helium leak tight or its not worth defending, for which it needs to be initially researched and written up by patent lawyers, you can assume a simple one will start around U$10,000.

Even then chances are by the time you're through all the paperwork either the technology has moved on, someone has found a loophole they can exploit or someone has or believes they have a previous filing which you are infringing.

^^ Just applies to a single country, if you want a world-wide patent it gets a lot harder.

So in summary, to make practical use of the patent system you need to be mega-rich, have mega-rich friends and/or have 100-1,000 patents on your books at any one time to allow for those which will fail in court or just be useless.

Last edited by Dilbert_X (2009-11-11 04:31:40)

lowing wrote:

Shahter wrote:

lowing wrote:

Ummmm the USSR lasted less than a lifetime, that is kinda like a blink of an eye in geo-political terms given the size of that regime. So yeah I think it is safe to say it was a failure and "did not work".

ussr failed, yes - for the reasons i mentioned above - but we are not discussing ussr alone here.

"now, don't get me wrong - the price to pay for the growth and stability of ussr was horrible. but the achievements were - and you can't deny it - nothing short of extraordinary. and to simply wave a hand and say "it dosnt' work" is, quite frankly, completely idiotic."

I was addressing this statement and yeah you did imply it worked.

the system was there for 70 years, then it got fucked up by several dudes who didn't know how to manage it properly (or sabotaged it on purpose). my point is: ussr did not fail because of its planned economy.

Last edited by Shahter (2009-11-11 06:53:34)

Cybargs wrote:

It got fucked over good from the beginning. USSR did fail because of a planned economy, it was already on a economic collapse. 5 year plan failed horribly. Oh, also enjoy gulags if you didn't meet production deadlines.

more trolling?
ehm... whatever.

PureFodder wrote:

You still don't get it. YOU are the one who proposes getting rid of patent protection, not me. If you are for free markets then you are for getting rid of patents by definition. I am not against getting rid of at least some form of decent IP protection. Getting rid of it would be stupid, hence why free market solutions are inherently stupid.

The fact that I have put out a whole list of arguments and you are only able to even reply regarding one aspect of one point (which Dilbert_X conviniently explained for me) just shows who the idiot is. You don't even understand which of us is proposing getting rid of patents.

Btw, patent cost alone can run well above $10,000 and as has been pointed out, without a big wad of cash to back up that patent in courts to secure it, it won't do you any good.

Then the entire premise of your argument is false because I in no way want our country to descend into anarchy. You were putting words into my mouth that I have never, and would never say. The form of economy you described is vastly different from one that I would ever advocate. You described Anarcho-Capitalism as if it were the primary ideology of Capitalism and not a fringe group that should be ignored. Once again, you've shown that you don't understand the concepts that you are arguing or the foundation of the argument that myself and Diesel were having. Read a damn book or take a class before you start spouting off with second hand knowledge that is obviously not your own and with arguments you don't understand.

Even with a patent costing $10,000 that's still not a lot of money, especially if the return would be a lot more than the initial investment.

Last edited by JohnG@lt (2009-11-11 12:59:59)

JohnG@lt wrote:

PureFodder wrote:

You still don't get it. YOU are the one who proposes getting rid of patent protection, not me. If you are for free markets then you are for getting rid of patents by definition. I am not against getting rid of at least some form of decent IP protection. Getting rid of it would be stupid, hence why free market solutions are inherently stupid.

The fact that I have put out a whole list of arguments and you are only able to even reply regarding one aspect of one point (which Dilbert_X conviniently explained for me) just shows who the idiot is. You don't even understand which of us is proposing getting rid of patents.

Btw, patent cost alone can run well above $10,000 and as has been pointed out, without a big wad of cash to back up that patent in courts to secure it, it won't do you any good.

Then the entire premise of your argument is false because I in no way want our country to descend into anarchy. You were putting words into my mouth that I have never, and would never say. The form of economy you described is vastly different from one that I would ever advocate. You described Anarcho-Capitalism as if it were the primary ideology of Capitalism and not a fringe group that should be ignored. Once again, you've shown that you don't understand the concepts that you are arguing or the foundation of the argument that myself and Diesel were having. Read a damn book or take a class before you start spouting off with second hand knowledge that is obviously not your own and with arguments you don't understand.

Even with a patent costing $10,000 that's still not a lot of money, especially if the return would be a lot more than the initial investment.

Getting rid of redistribution of wealth means getting rid of the most significant mechanisms that are the ones that redistribute wealth upwards. Generally doing these things is a really bad idea. The visible efforts to redistribute wealth downwards are a neccessity of the desire to keep the mechanisms that redistribute money upwards. Without them you'll just be screwing the poor. The patent system is government going in and making an absolutely huge change to the way that the economy works. Yet you state "Anything the government touches is inherently inefficient and wasteful." You obviously don't think that patents are inherently inefficient and wasteful so clearly your statement is wrong.

You can't address removing redistribution of wealth downwards without addressing redistribution of wealth upwards.

The primary really existing ideology in capitalism is not free markets. It's 'market forces for you, protectionism for me'.

As has been mentioned twice now, the bulk of patent cost are patent defence. If you cant sue someone for breaching your copywrite it's useless. Plus there's the issue that if your patent is even remotely related to one owned by a very rich individual/business, they can challenge you in court and force you to waste vast amounts of money defending it. If you are poor that tactic works, you're likely to be forced to abandon the copywrite. If you can afford to defend it there far less point in them doing it (although it oftern happens anyway).

PureFodder wrote:

Getting rid of redistribution of wealth means getting rid of the most significant mechanisms that are the ones that redistribute wealth upwards. Generally doing these things is a really bad idea. The visible efforts to redistribute wealth downwards are a neccessity of the desire to keep the mechanisms that redistribute money upwards. Without them you'll just be screwing the poor. The patent system is government going in and making an absolutely huge change to the way that the economy works. Yet you state "Anything the government touches is inherently inefficient and wasteful." You obviously don't think that patents are inherently inefficient and wasteful so clearly your statement is wrong.

You can't address removing redistribution of wealth downwards without addressing redistribution of wealth upwards.

The primary really existing ideology in capitalism is not free markets. It's 'market forces for you, protectionism for me'.

As has been mentioned twice now, the bulk of patent cost are patent defence. If you cant sue someone for breaching your copywrite it's useless. Plus there's the issue that if your patent is even remotely related to one owned by a very rich individual/business, they can challenge you in court and force you to waste vast amounts of money defending it. If you are poor that tactic works, you're likely to be forced to abandon the copywrite. If you can afford to defend it there far less point in them doing it (although it oftern happens anyway).

There's no such thing as 'redistribution upwards'. You're talking about profits made by selling a product which doesn't end up sitting in a vault somewhere, it's reinvested or distributed as bonuses or invested in a different company. The money doesn't just sit there. Nothing in the system is designed to entrench the wealthy and keep them wealthy. There are many more examples of families that have squandered the wealth made by an initial scion than have maintained their status as wealthy over generations. Each succeeding generation tends to have less of a grasp on the value of money and less of an inclination to earn it which is much of the reason they end up poor or middle class. There are trends both upwards and down within society and they are mostly attributed to skill and desire. Most people are stupid and/or lazy so they lack the traits necessary to become 'rich'. Tough luck for them.

JohnG@lt wrote:

PureFodder wrote:

Getting rid of redistribution of wealth means getting rid of the most significant mechanisms that are the ones that redistribute wealth upwards. Generally doing these things is a really bad idea. The visible efforts to redistribute wealth downwards are a neccessity of the desire to keep the mechanisms that redistribute money upwards. Without them you'll just be screwing the poor. The patent system is government going in and making an absolutely huge change to the way that the economy works. Yet you state "Anything the government touches is inherently inefficient and wasteful." You obviously don't think that patents are inherently inefficient and wasteful so clearly your statement is wrong.

You can't address removing redistribution of wealth downwards without addressing redistribution of wealth upwards.

The primary really existing ideology in capitalism is not free markets. It's 'market forces for you, protectionism for me'.

As has been mentioned twice now, the bulk of patent cost are patent defence. If you cant sue someone for breaching your copywrite it's useless. Plus there's the issue that if your patent is even remotely related to one owned by a very rich individual/business, they can challenge you in court and force you to waste vast amounts of money defending it. If you are poor that tactic works, you're likely to be forced to abandon the copywrite. If you can afford to defend it there far less point in them doing it (although it oftern happens anyway).

There's no such thing as 'redistribution upwards'. You're talking about profits made by selling a product which doesn't end up sitting in a vault somewhere, it's reinvested or distributed as bonuses or invested in a different company. The money doesn't just sit there. Nothing in the system is designed to entrench the wealthy and keep them wealthy. There are many more examples of families that have squandered the wealth made by an initial scion than have maintained their status as wealthy over generations. Each succeeding generation tends to have less of a grasp on the value of money and less of an inclination to earn it which is much of the reason they end up poor or middle class. There are trends both upwards and down within society and they are mostly attributed to skill and desire. Most people are stupid and/or lazy so they lack the traits necessary to become 'rich'. Tough luck for them.

You honesty don't believe that any aspect of western societies has been designed by the rich and powerful to help the rich and powerful?

What planet are you living on, because it sure ain't the one that everyone else is on.

JohnG@lt wrote:

You described Anarcho-Capitalism as if it were the primary ideology of Capitalism and not a fringe group that should be ignored.

So basically capitalists want everything free and unrestrained, except those features which allow them to control and dominate the economy with the help of government.
Its just a different kind of government control really, which allows some people to become very rich.

Altering the system would allow capital to flow to people with good ideas, not to those who already have a pile of money and a team of good lawyers.

Last edited by Dilbert_X (2009-11-11 18:43:23)

lowing wrote:

Don't look now, but 70 years is not a long time for an ideology, or a nation. It failed, get used to it.

no, dude, this won't work on me. ideology failed - yes, ussr failed as a nation - yes, never said those didn't. but it still doesn't mean that planned economy doesn't work, on the contrary, actually, and i already explained why.

Last edited by Shahter (2009-11-11 21:54:58)

KEN-JENNINGS wrote:

Right, but those are examples of "redistribution upwards".  I don't think there are many people at all that agree with them (except for the winners).  It's just more evidence that power lies with concentrated capital, not the people.

Have you ever read Atlas Shrugged? Rand has probably been one of the biggest champions of industry in the entire history of mankind and she warned against and denounced those who used 'pull' in places like Washington in order to further their business at the expense of others. When a man would fail but for his connections in government, and he uses those connections, he is not worthy of his gains, nor is he worthy of respect. We live in the "Age of Pull" that she described where sub-par business men write the legislation against their competitors. It's a good read if you haven't done so already.

Great example is how Lehman Brothers was allowed to completely fail because it was a direct competitor of Goldman Sachs. Goldman Sachs is the government's baby.

Last edited by JohnG@lt (2009-11-11 22:11:46)

DrunkFace wrote:

JohnG@lt wrote:

Dilbert_X wrote:

So basically capitalists want everything free and unrestrained, except those features which allow them to control and dominate the economy with the help of government.
Its just a different kind of government control really, which allows some people to become very rich.

Altering the system would allow capital to flow to people with good ideas, not to those who already have a pile of money and a team of good lawyers.

No, you're describing corruption, not capitalism. Different beasts.

Without regulations there us no such thing as corruption.

Ha! Every layer of regulation brings even more corruption and crony capitalism into being.

JohnG@lt wrote:

DrunkFace wrote:

JohnG@lt wrote:

No, you're describing corruption, not capitalism. Different beasts.

Without regulations there us no such thing as corruption.

Ha! Every layer of regulation brings even more corruption and crony capitalism into being.

Yes, because without it, people would do exactly the same shit (if not more) it just wouldn't be 'corrupt'.

Your argument is basically we should make theft legal because then crime rates would fall.

Last edited by DrunkFace (2009-11-11 22:28:59)

Dilbert_X wrote:

JohnG@lt wrote:

No, you're describing corruption, not capitalism. Different beasts.

No, capitalists cherish the systems, for example patents, the political process etc. which allow the rich and powerful to maintain their hold on riches and power. Its not corruption, its the capitalist system.

An aside on patents, some companies maintain teams of engineers whose job it is to look at competitor companies technologies and come up with patents which effectively disable the competition.
Hows that for the free market?

Another example, industry cooperative groups. You'd think that groups which work to formulate standards to the benefit of everyone eg MPEG, USB etc would be altruistic and work together. In fact they often attend meetings then rush off to patent every conceivable aspect of what has just been discussed, then while the rest of the group is in the dark about what they've just filed initial patents on lobby for their version to be adopted as the standard so they can clean up.

Always harping on the negative and holding up the minority as if it were the majority. If I filed a patent today for a new type of energy storage system I am protected for ten years. I can then use those years to find investors to start my company to produce my product. Without the patent as soon as I announced my idea there would be ten people already in business producing it within a week and what would I have gotten for doing the initial hard work? Nada.

Every system can be manipulated by smart or unethical people. It's just human nature to push boundaries. But to hold up a small minority and use it as the rationale to advocate mass punishment is completely asinine.

Last edited by JohnG@lt (2009-11-12 05:19:57)