Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Biden launches action on "Big Tech, Big Pharma, and Big Ag" – can it be real?

mattstoller.substack.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

131–140 of 595 posts

Re: Biden launches action on "Big Tech, Big Pharma, and Big Ag" – can it be real?

#131

Post by Animats »

summerlight wrote: post #95
ampdepolymerase wrote: post #7

How about Big Telecom and Big Fintech and Banking? Or is it simply because the rest did not pay enough to the lobbyists?

This executive order is really comprehensive, it touches literally every economical areas where competitions are withering away. To be specific, I think this part addresses your concern on big telecoms. > (l) To promote competition, lower prices, and a vibrant and innovative telecommunications ecosystem, the Chair of the Federal Communications Commission is encouraged to work with the rest of the Commission, as appro…

We need to bring back the Glass-Stegall Act, which kept banks and brokerages separate. It's not really about competition, though; it's about isolating broker failures from bank failures. That was in Trump's plaform, by the way.

Re: Biden launches action on "Big Tech, Big Pharma, and Big Ag" – can it be real?

#132

Post by seattle_spring »

thoughtstheseus wrote: post #102
seattle_spring wrote: post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Moderation is not censorship.

If there is no viable alternative then it’s censorship. Put the power of moderation in the hands of people, create a market for it, that’s a winning strategy.

What are some of your opinions that can't be shared freely on at least some platforms? "Conservative opinions" don't count, because if they were actually censored then I wouldn't have to have them rammed down my throat every minute of every day from every angle.

Re: Biden launches action on "Big Tech, Big Pharma, and Big Ag" – can it be real?

#133

Post by throwawayboise »

giantg2 wrote: post #84
akira2501 wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The entire point of patents... Well, if that were so, you would expect them to be secret and to never expire. The fact that are published and expire after a relatively short period belies the simplicity of that statement.

In today's world, 20 years could mean the patented object is obsolete by the time it is public domain. Having exclusive use of the technology for the duration of it's useful life expectancy seems like a monopoly to me...

Yes, there is probably a good argument to be made that many patents should have a shorter protected period. Also the "non obvious" requirement for an invention seems to need more emphasis, when an idea like "one click ordering" can be patented.

Re: Biden launches action on "Big Tech, Big Pharma, and Big Ag" – can it be real?

#134

Post by yissp »

maxk42 wrote: post #75
throwawayboise wrote: post #28

"Hearing aids cost thousands of dollars apiece, for no other reason than there is a cartel established by government that prevents firms from selling hearing aids without a prescription." An example of how many (most?) monopolies are able to exist because of some sort of legal authorization or protection. Regulatory capture. There are dozens of companies who would no doubt start making inexpensive hearing aids tomorr…

The only problem I see with allowing anyone to offer hearing aids is the hypothetical problem that a malfunctioning product may harm someone's hearing further. That's a real issue to be addressed, but generally I agree that making it easier for people to help other people is better than throwing up obstacles.

A huge number of everyday products have the potential to cause serious harm if they're defective, but they generally aren't regulated to the extent that hearing aids are. As a sibling comment points out, the threat of law suits keeps manufacturers in check.

Re: Biden launches action on "Big Tech, Big Pharma, and Big Ag" – can it be real?

#135

Post by Notanothertoo »

throwaway5752 wrote: post #47
giantg2 wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"monopolies are able to exist because of some sort of legal authorization or protection" The entire point of patents...

It was not great before patents when a big company could steal your work and put you out of business after you put in the R&D effort.

As someone who started a business only to get a bullshit suit that I was unable to afford by one of the largest re insurance providers in the world (#1/2), the idea that the ip/patent legal framework as it is today helps the little guy is a slap in the face.

They preemptively sued me in a state I've never worked in or entered for that matter because the favorable corporate law there, and that is why they have their hq there. They would file a bullshit motion, get everyone in front of the judge. Somebody would point it out, they would retract it, and immediately file a new one and request everyone have time to review it. All the while bleeding me dry at 500$ an hour for litigation on top of travel expenses plus the regular legal fees of multiple lawyers across two states.

The whole thing was bullshit, lots of red flags but I lacked the capital to assert my agency legally..

The ip/patent framework as it is today helps nobody but big co and promotes regulatory capture. It prevents the kind of reverse engineering you see in China and why we don't have things like removable battery cell phone mods and other "hacks" here. It's why the right to repair is an issue at all, if they didn't have this legal framework they wouldn't be able to enforce any of it legally. Somebody would come along and offer a service to do it at a fraction of the cost. Why do I have to keep buying the same media over and over again on different formats. It's amazing to me seeing the most authoritarian regime in modern history leverage the free market better than the "capitalists". Sorry for the rant but this shit is imo the reason for most of the corporate bullshit today. It's what empowers the lawyers.

Re: Biden launches action on "Big Tech, Big Pharma, and Big Ag" – can it be real?

#136

Post by Notanothertoo »

throwaway5752 wrote: post #108
giantg2 wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah, that used to be the point of patents. Now it seems it's mostly to squeeze as much out of people by capturing the majority of the market by not allowing similar products. I mean, we have CEOs of biomedical companies admitting that they aren't basing prices off of what it costs to research, develop, and deliver a therapy, but rather base it off of what a deaparare person is willing to pay for it. This is the very…

Agreed? Patents are being misused. We should fix that. Patents fixed gross injustices when they were created, and we shouldn't forget that, either. Software is probably the worst example of a field for patents and I think the case for patenting algorithms or design is dicey. But if you sink 100M into drug R&D, a novel type of medical device, or a new type of semiconductor CVD process you should have some protection a…

No you shouldn't.. The idea that your idea is so novel it should be legally enforced as "yours" is pretty egotistical imo. How do you credit the millions of ideas you are basing yours off of. It's also information, it's not "stolen" in the sense that multiple people can't use it at the same time.

Benefit of rnd is being first to market. You will capture much of the market while everyone else catches up and you are in a better position to innovate.

Also without these legal barriers if somebody can improve on it and make it better that's better for the community and consumer at large and allows for constant iteration.

Also there is a lot of bad behavior and things encouraged by the patent system. You have judges giving patents over technical nuances they can't possibly learn in a courtroom. You have companies like Intel spending millions on legal teams to enforce things rather then engineering innovation, which is great until you are no longer the dominant player and global players don't play by those rules.

Re: Biden launches action on "Big Tech, Big Pharma, and Big Ag" – can it be real?

#137

Post by [deleted] »

tayo42 wrote: post #68
giantg2 wrote: post #41

Sort of good, but we'll see how it plays out without other policies supporting it. Frankly, many consolidations are not malicious but necessary for survival. Economies of scale and verticle integration are required to complete with foreign companies with lower costs. Look at domestic steel production. No way the market can support numerous domestic options that can compete with the low cost of foreign imports. Then t…

What are some uses for honey by the pound? Off topic but curious, I only ever put it in tea rarely or simmiliarly rarely use it as a sugar alternative when cooking.

[deleted]

Re: Biden launches action on "Big Tech, Big Pharma, and Big Ag" – can it be real?

#138

Post by AnimalMuppet »

ratsmack wrote: post #3

I can understand them going after Ag and Pharma in a big way, but I'm skeptical about the Tech part. There is just too much to lose in political support from that industry for any politician to attack them too aggressively.

But, see, if I'm a politician, it's exactly "there is just too much to lose in political support from that industry" that worries me. I've seen how much weight they can throw against a politician they don't like; I've seen them decide to go from "not throwing that weight" to "throwing that weight" very abruptly; and I realize that such a move can be made against me at the drop of a hat. That would worry me. Would it worry me enough for me to risk triggering their wrath right now? I don't know.

As a non-politician, here's what I think needs to happen. They either need broken up, or they need heavily regulated. (We didn't break up the power companies. But we did create the Public Service Commissions to heavily regulate them.) I could see a Public Network Committee or something, saying: "No, you can't make that change your UI to make it even more addictive. No, you can't gouge advertisers. No, you can't directly sell personal information..."

Re: Biden launches action on "Big Tech, Big Pharma, and Big Ag" – can it be real?

#139

Post by s1artibartfast »

worik wrote: post #125
s1artibartfast wrote: post #116

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What part of that is big ag, opposed to ag in general. I don't see the difference on those topics personally.

Economies of scale, when viewed from the perspective of a cattle beast in a feed lot are a horrible thing in agriculture. Modern industrial agriculture with its expensive inputs, ruination of land, and abuse of live stock is a quite horrifying thing and is impoverishing the people responsible for the base of our food supply. It is the most efficient in terms of output per input, but not by most other measures.

But you don't need to be a monopoly or even a big company to have an awful feedlots, monocrop farming, ect.

Re: Biden launches action on "Big Tech, Big Pharma, and Big Ag" – can it be real?

#140

Post by dehrmann »

giantg2 wrote: post #87
tayo42 wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I see, yeah I only ever get a the little honey bear ones lol, but the big jars at farmers markets look interesting but they're always huge and I almost never use honey

As long as they're airtight they stay good for years. Some local producers sell small jars too. I mostly sell pint jars (1.4 lbs). I will probably switch to standard 1 lb jars soon.

> they stay good for years

The lifespan is indefinite. If crystals start to form, you can heat the honey and it'll return to it's normal(?) state.

Post reply on HN