Earlier quoted context omitted.
Pointing out someone else's hypocrisy is not a defense of bad behavior.
It is a proof that the behavior in question isn't "bad" in the first place.
[deleted]
How China Systematically Pries Technology from U.S. Companies
191–200 of 208 posts
Re: How China Systematically Pries Technology from U.S. Companies
#192Earlier quoted context omitted.
Pointing out someone else's hypocrisy is not a defense of bad behavior.
It is a proof that the behavior in question isn't "bad" in the first place.
The tu quoque fallacy [1] is not proof.
Stealing IP without contributing to creation costs is bad behavior on several levels.
Re: How China Systematically Pries Technology from U.S. Companies
#193Earlier quoted context omitted.
>Nobody would invest millions into figuring out the right arrangement of atoms that cures some disease Sure they would. It's called public research, most of which is promptly handed to private companies to profit from. Pharmaceutical research is hugely taxpayer subsidized.[1] Let me be clear: I think the funding is a good thing, but the privatization (read: theft) of subsequent profits is bad. [1] https://other98.com…
Obviously I'm talking about private investment, not public funding. Of course these companies use information obtained through public research, they're supposed to , because there's a long process from research to an approved product, which is what the research institutions do not do . Public and private research goes hand in hand, just like in other industries. The study quotes a hundred billion in public funding ov…
> Obviously I'm talking about private investment, not public funding.
Obviously both can "[figure] out the right arrangement of atoms that cures some disease." How does that not answer your question? Furthermore, how would 'obviousness' negate a counterexample? You're just moving the goalposts here.
>It's not "a scam", as that article wants you to believe. You should stop reading that website, it's making you more uneducated.
My apologies, your friendly suggestion is misguided. My "source" was the notoriously uneducated Noam Chomsky, but I knew you'd pooh-pooh that (can't stop you tho! :D) as appeal to authority. I confess I lazily Googled the citation.
Direct link to the timecode of Chomsky's comments: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=szIGZVrSAyc&t=11m18s (~4m long)
Re: How China Systematically Pries Technology from U.S. Companies
#194Earlier quoted context omitted.
It sounds like you are advocating something like IP mercantilism which is even worse than the original mercantilism considering that IP is not a zero-sum commodity. It should be distributed as widely as possible.
And then what incentivizes a company to invest heavily in R&D if they will derive no disproportionate advantage from their discoveries? Wouldn't there be a bit of a tragedy of the commons situation where everyone tries to wait for everyone else to invest so that they can reap the reward while others bear the cost? If that comes to pass, everyone will be poorer as R&D spending slows down.
Keeping customers. See Shenzhen which is a free-for-all but out-innovates about everyone else in product development:
Re: How China Systematically Pries Technology from U.S. Companies
#195AMD has to license their stuff to Hygon too. I think it’s great. IP laws are stifling innovation and the fact that there is an escape hatch in China is a good thing.
IP laws also support innovation. Nobody would invest millions into figuring out the right arrangement of atoms that cures some disease, if there wasn't a way to profit from that. At the other end of the spectrum is protecting the "invention" of buying something with a single mouse click. There should be a healthy middle somewhere.
They've actually been supporting monopolies and oligopolies by large, barely-innovating companies or patent trolls seeking to maximize profit at everyone else's expense.
https://www.eff.org/issues/patents
Reform is desperately needed. Further, most startups or software we see on HN didn't happen because someone was reading patent databases all day. They usually just make stuff out of a need or want, try to grow it with iterations and marketing, and make money off that. Most use patents defensively or just to increase money in acquisition/IPO's since buyers think patents are important. Why buy them if innovation already happened? To stop others via patent suits from innovating and stealing their market share. Patents hurt innovation.
Re: How China Systematically Pries Technology from U.S. Companies
#196Earlier quoted context omitted.
It is a proof that the behavior in question isn't "bad" in the first place.
The tu quoque fallacy [1] is not proof. Stealing IP without contributing to creation costs is bad behavior on several levels. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tu_quoque#The_fallacy
You assume that "IP" is a real thing. It is an invented concept. Those who insist on its reality do so for their own benefit. Those who deny it, do so for their own. How are disinterested parties to decide? Well, they might examine how genuine the two positions are...
There is a difference between "I can do this bad thing, because you have already done it" and "this thing is not bad, otherwise you wouldn't have done it". Tu quoque addresses the former situation, not the latter.
Re: How China Systematically Pries Technology from U.S. Companies
#197Earlier quoted context omitted.
Obviously I'm talking about private investment, not public funding. Of course these companies use information obtained through public research, they're supposed to , because there's a long process from research to an approved product, which is what the research institutions do not do . Public and private research goes hand in hand, just like in other industries. The study quotes a hundred billion in public funding ov…
> Obviously I'm talking about private investment, not public funding. Obviously both can "[figure] out the right arrangement of atoms that cures some disease." How does that not answer your question? Furthermore, how would 'obviousness' negate a counterexample? You're just moving the goalposts here. >It's not "a scam", as that article wants you to believe. You should stop reading that website, it's making you more un…
> Obviously both can "[figure] out the right arrangement of atoms that cures some disease." How does that not answer your question?
I didn't ask a question.
> Furthermore, how would 'obviousness' negate a counterexample? You're just moving the goalposts here.
You are playing a semantic game. The obvious, honest interpretation of my words is that I'm talking about preserving private investment. I'm of course aware that governments can and do fund research. I didn't expect to be discussing with a person that has such poor debating skills as to resort to such nitpicking, otherwise I wouldn't have replied at all.
> My apologies, your friendly suggestion is misguided. My "source" was the notoriously uneducated Noam Chomsky, but I knew you'd pooh-pooh that (can't stop you tho! :D) as appeal to authority.
No I wouldn't, because Mr. Chomsky isn't considered an authority on that particular subject (or most any of the many subjects he has opinions on).
Again, I'm not denying the contributions of publicly funded universities. You're (apparently) denying the contribution of privately funded R&D. It's true that companies rely on public research, why shouldn't they? What else is supposed to happen?
Re: How China Systematically Pries Technology from U.S. Companies
#198Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Obviously I'm talking about private investment, not public funding. Obviously both can "[figure] out the right arrangement of atoms that cures some disease." How does that not answer your question? Furthermore, how would 'obviousness' negate a counterexample? You're just moving the goalposts here. >It's not "a scam", as that article wants you to believe. You should stop reading that website, it's making you more un…
> Obviously both can "[figure] out the right arrangement of atoms that cures some disease." How does that not answer your question? I didn't ask a question. > Furthermore, how would 'obviousness' negate a counterexample? You're just moving the goalposts here. You are playing a semantic game. The obvious, honest interpretation of my words is that I'm talking about preserving private investment. I'm of course aware tha…
>I didn't ask a question.
Allow me to rephrase: that disproves your statement, "nobody would invest millions into figuring out the right arrangement of atoms that cures some disease, if there wasn't a way to profit from that."
Everything else is noise.
Re: How China Systematically Pries Technology from U.S. Companies
#199Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Obviously both can "[figure] out the right arrangement of atoms that cures some disease." How does that not answer your question? I didn't ask a question. > Furthermore, how would 'obviousness' negate a counterexample? You're just moving the goalposts here. You are playing a semantic game. The obvious, honest interpretation of my words is that I'm talking about preserving private investment. I'm of course aware tha…
>I didn't ask a question. Allow me to rephrase: that disproves your statement, " nobody would invest millions into figuring out the right arrangement of atoms that cures some disease, if there wasn't a way to profit from that." Everything else is noise.
> Allow me to rephrase: that disproves your statement, "nobody would invest millions into figuring out the right arrangement of atoms that cures some disease, if there wasn't a way to profit from that."
You really want to play that dumb semantic game? Fine, I'll play: I didn't specify financial profit. When publicly funded research leads to the cure for a disease, then the public profits.
> Everything else is noise.
No it isn't, "everything else" is the whole damn point that you fail to address.
Re: How China Systematically Pries Technology from U.S. Companies
#200Earlier quoted context omitted.
IP laws also support innovation. Nobody would invest millions into figuring out the right arrangement of atoms that cures some disease, if there wasn't a way to profit from that. At the other end of the spectrum is protecting the "invention" of buying something with a single mouse click. There should be a healthy middle somewhere.
They've actually been supporting monopolies and oligopolies by large, barely-innovating companies or patent trolls seeking to maximize profit at everyone else's expense. https://www.eff.org/issues/patents Reform is desperately needed. Further, most startups or software we see on HN didn't happen because someone was reading patent databases all day. They usually just make stuff out of a need or want, try to grow it wi…
> Reform is desperately needed.
I don't disagree, but it's not like there aren't any arguments for both sides. You can point to negative outcomes for any piece of regulation, it doesn't put the whole concept into question.