Because gotta hate on Musk.
You're just wrong.
It has never been a mechanism that creates jobs.
IP is what creates most jobs right now. Let's take software development for example. That would be a 100% share of that. Without IP protection they wouldn't be able to compete. Even open-source software wouldn't exist because they are also protected by licenses.
Just the people who can afford more lawyers to convince the court their design is legally distinct.
This statement is such populistic bs and completely contradictory in itself. If there was no law and order and no IP protection, the big companies will be the only ones to survive. Just think this through for a second. How is a small company supposed to make profits by innovating? The big ones will immediately steal it and put them out of business because they have the economies of scale. Your lawyers will help even less when there is no law that protecs against that. So even if your conspiracy were correct, it's still a bad argument.
The economy? The economy would boom and we wouldn't be worried about legally distinct rectangles between Apple and Samsung.
No it wouldn't. As I said before: manufacturing is easy. Logistics is easy. Inmovation is hard.
If nobody can make profits with innovating then nobody will do ressearch and development. We'll end up in a world where education is irrelevant, no meaningful innovation will be made and the companies will win that can manufacture the cheapest by cheap labor (as innovation is impossible to make). So slavery will ultimately win and innovation will he stifled.
There is a key point you don't seem to understand: competion in a world where innovation is not competitive is a terrible thing and half of our current digitalized economy will lose jobs.
Just think about this for a second. Take software development for example. Running a software, hosting a website, or operating servers for a service are all so incredibly cheap and easy to do. This is not what companies distinguish themselves with. The hard part is writing the software and that is entirely IP protected. If it weren't, then nobody would put work into this anymore. If 99% of your investment is software development and 1% hosting the service you developed, then why would anyone invest into that if the 99% can just be stolen after it's finished? The only way to make profits and be competitive in an IP-less world is to not develop or innovate, steal as much IP as possible, enslave people to manufacture as cheap as possible. I don't think this is the kind of competition you envision.
Double-think as in 1984.
Double-think
Thanks for sharing!
You mean, don't use airplanes in Russia period? Also, don't stand close to windows.
Wait, there is blocklists for Lemmy?
Reading this makes me feel sad. Few people are able to destroy a whole culture.
They are trying to build hype. The leaks are intentional and expected.
Whats wrong with some entertaining sports? You don't have to watch it. But millions of people want to.
They don't have reproducible builds afaik (unlike Signal). You can have a completely different code running on your phone than on GitHub.
Besides, who is using Secret Chat anyways? All default chats and group chats are unencrypted.
doodledup
joined 2 months ago
There is so much false information in your reply I don't even know where to start. Your idealized world is inherently illogical and cannot exist. You're against big corps and monopolies and seem to love the spirit of FOSS. But none of that logically implies any conclusions about IP and IP protection. You're confusing causation with correlation. I'll explain that below.
It only works because of IP. Software is IP: Software isn't manufactured, it's not produced, it has no operating cost, you cannot grab it, you can copy it indefinitely, etc. Take away IP protection, and the software developer can no longer pay their bills. The only one who can pay the bills is the one using the already developed software to build a service or materialized product. But that person does not need to pay the first one because he can just steal it.
If there were no protection on software, then nobody would develop it, this also counts for non-hobbyist FOSS projects. It's good that you brought up Linux as an example. Because Linux is also IP and is protected by laws and licenses. You cannot just freely copy a Linux distro. It needs to be under the same license and nothing more permissive than that. You can't just grap Linux, make it closed-source, modify it, and profit from it. Your Linux counterexample is actually a prime example why IP protection works. Linux is profitable because a lot of industries see value in it so they fund it. But the whole community thing only works because Linux has a license and there are laws that protect its existence and the work the developers do.
That's just wrong. First of all, there are laws on what can be patented and what is IP. Secondly, there are laws against monopolies. There are major law suits against Google and Apple right now and I see there being more in the future. I agree that there is a public and economic interest to prevent monopolies and anti-competitive behavior because they are a threat to our world economy. However, IP protection in general does not threaten anything like that. It's only remotely related. In a world without IP protection, monopolies would be even worse as these companies will always be the fastest to steal something and scale it to large economies.
FOSS does not mean free as in "free beer". This is a common misconception. FOSS software was never meant to be free-of-charge. FOSS means free as in "freedom to modify, use and distribute".
Innovation never happens at large scale without monetary compensation.
Sure, some smaller projects are developed by people in their free-time and provided as free-of-charge. But they are getting payed the rest of the day for, guess what, developing software with monetary intentions. How else are they going to pay their bills? The larger projects that people work at full time (Linux, Nextcloud come to mind) are funded either by donations, extra services or other means. They are always funded. And every one of the projects has a license that is defined by some IP protection law.
You're not against IP or monetizing IP. You're against big corps and monopolies squeezing them and misusing them for their own benefit. You need to make yourself clear what you're actually against. IP is a good thing and an incentive for innovation. Most importantly, it benefits the small innovators the most. What we need to do is write laws to stop monopolies from breaking the system.