iCP2: They're throwing in the towel.

[rohezal]

The important factor is always "people", not the theoretical system...

No the system influence the people, Medieval Theocracy, Ancient Greece Philosophers Democracy, Roman Gladiator fights while an emperor rules. People got very different goals in their life (go to heaven, try to understand the world, have lots of fun). "Das Sein bestimmt das Bewusstsein" (The world around you, is the reason why you think how you think) (Karl Marx).

Apparently that did not prevent Elon Musk from disrupting the electric car industry with the Tesla. Seems like it's working fine, actually.

The Tesla is a proof that industry interests can slow down development for decades, since a small company inventented it 2008. Instead of a big company 1990. And patents are still stoping people to make the best possible products. AMD can't do some stuff with their GPU since NVIDIA has patents on lots of stuff. Or a smartphone which must not look like an Iphone. Or people in India which must not get cheap cancer medicine since Beyer has patents. It stops development and kills people.

There are millions of small shop owners and freelance folks in every single country. It works for a damn lot of people.

Yes and there are less and less in the west and big malls like Wallmart are rising, since they are cheaper and have more stuff to choose from. Not everony can own a shop and sell each other stuff. This is senseless.

Actually, no. Most basic research is done by the Industry. What the industry publishes and develops every single year dwarfs whatever the universities are discovering and developing, by far. Unless you are talking about stuff like the CERN which has no direct industrial application for the coming 20 years, but that's a very small piece of the research going on worldwide.

There's one very good example of that kind of "basic" research : the pharma industry. There's a lot of very basic research led by public companies (in partnership with academics, I'll grant you that) that would not occur if they did not fund them - and it's very risky, so they fund tons of different projects knowing very well that 1 out 100 may make it later on.

This is not basic research (except for some pharma research). Basic research is to find formulars, to test materials etc. Most of industry money goes to developing things out of basic research and or improve things. At least in my university the computer vision departments are doing lots of the research for a big german car manufacturer, including self driving cars, which is basic research. Additional companies spend money on things which generate profits. The german pharma industry spends 200% of the research budget for marketing. This is sick. They prefer to spend money to lower blood pressure instead of AIDS since there is more money (rich people from the west which don't do enough sport and eat to much vs. poor african christians who must not use condoms).

There's not only kickstarter. There are banks. There are private investors. There are public companies investing in other companies or startups. There are tons of investment opportunities out there.

Which invest money into things which makes more money, not to produce better enough products for poor people or to fund important scientific studies. So the bank woul rather spend money on a land mines factory instead of funding a research of a medine which cures a rare disease like the alien hand syndrom.

And by the way, the communalization of lands and agricultural means of productions has been DONE before, and experimented in many countries, and has shown clear FAILURE and ended up in STARVATION. Seriously, wanting to go back in that direction, knowing how it ended up in the death of millions of people in Russia and China, is like promoting mass-murder.

A dictator like Stalin and a "religious" regime like Mao China did wrong planing and let people starve (some people say about Stalin even on purpose). This says nothing  about the public use of farm land. The GDR and Cuba have public land and nobody starved. In Cuba the farmers on the land can sell a percentage of their crops on the market themself, the rest taken away (for a monthly wage).   "Stealing" land is a question of moral system, if it is possible to own land, or just to rent it.

It is a bit depressing to see that the lessions of socialism have not been learned by our wannabe Maos.

This is just stupid. Hitler was elected in a democratic republic (Weimarer Republik). You can't say: "It is a bit depressing to see that the lessions of democracy have not been learned by our wannabe Hitlers."

That's certainly a special industry, but In the video games and related industries, most of the basic research is done by private companies too - when it comes to developing new engines, new IA systems, new middleware, etc. There's almost nothing done by academics in that field. Same goes for special effects around Hollywood.

This is my field of research. And this claim is not true. Lots of new ideas come from clever private guys like Carmack and new technology from NVIDIA and co.  But look at the SIGGRAPH where most stuff is presented. You see lots of Universities there. Most stuff comes from public research. Same for Hollywood Effects. Some development happens two times (one in academics and / or in companies). Z-Buffering, Smooth Shadows (by Eisemann), Raytracing GPUs were developed by academics. For physics you need basics like Lagrange Particles or Gaussian Grid, which where invented by academics.

And most people going into the industry and develop new stuff, did the fundations for this new stuff in their master / bachelor thesis with help from their university. Some companies are even runned by people who work in the university (David Laserscanner for example).

 

[ekianjo]

And patents are still stoping people to make the best possible products. AMD can't do some stuff with their GPU since NVIDIA has patents on lots of stuff. Or a smartphone which must not look like an Iphone. Or people in India which must not get cheap cancer medicine since Beyer has patents. It stops development and kills people.

Patents have nothing to do with free markets. In case you don't know, patents are state-granted monopolies, and that's usually something frown upon by entrepreneurs and libertarians, for good reasons.

Yes and there are less and less in the west and big malls like Wallmart are rising, since they are cheaper and have more stuff to choose from. Not everony can own a shop and sell each other stuff. This is senseless.

I'd say the opposite. Since the advent of the Internet there are actually more people than ever who are making additional income with stuff they sell by themselves.

So the bank woul rather spend money on a land mines factory instead of funding a research of a medine which cures a rare disease like the alien hand syndrom.

Nothing's preventing companies to work on rare diseases, but the market is simply not there. That's why you have NGOs or government led research for what does not make commercial sense. But the issue with rare diseases is that it's hard to produce good scientific data when there's very few patients. I guess you can understand that. Statistics matter.

 

[ekianjo]

A dictator like Stalin and a "religious" regime like Mao China did wrong planing and let people starve (some people say about Stalin even on purpose). This says nothing about the public use of farm land.

Oh, this says it all, on the contrary. Stalin was claiming he would do things better than Lenin. Mao was claiming that he would do things better than Stalin. And the socialists of that time were all cheering for both of them, predicting glorious future for both countries. It's strange that socialists always seem to be wrong in the end, and come up with a rationale later on "oh, that's just because they didn't do it right... next time's will be the right time". Yeha, after killing another 20 million people in starvation, probably.

Government planning does not work. Been demonstrated tons of time, even with Medicare recently in the US, or even numerous government run companies all around the world. Because government run companies do not understand the market incentives, they completely miss what they have do and produce and they end up screwing themselves in the mid term. Or making cars that nobody wants to drive (plastic cars from Russia). But it's ok, because the Socialist governments likes monopolies and people can't buy cars from outside of Russia and everyone ends up driving the same shit.

 

[ekianjo]

This is just stupid. Hitler was elected in a democratic republic (Weimarer Republik).

The Weimar republic was hardly what you could call a democratic republic by nowadays' standards, and the times and situation were very different. Germany had been crushed by the Treaty of Versailles and a bunch of leaders (such as Hitler but not only him) and germans were hungry for revenge. If not Hitler it would have been someone else.

 

[ekianjo]

And most people going into the industry and develop new stuff, did the fundations for this new stuff in their master / bachelor thesis with help from their university.

I don't consider "academic research" the work which is done by students until they graduate. That's part of the expectation for them to complete their studies. Academic research is usually what is conducted by professors who stay in the academic field for the rest of their career.

 

[rohezal]

Patents have nothing to do with free markets. In case you don't know, patents are state-granted monopolies, and that's usually something frown upon by entrepreneurs and libertarians, for good reasons.

Oh ok, then I am sorry. But how would anyone do research in capitaslism when there are no patents?

Example:

You have 1.000.000 Dollars. You spend 500.000$ in developing a new mobile phone. You create 1000 mobile phones with the 500.000$ left. So every phone costs: 500$ (development costs) + 500$ (producing costs) = 1000$.

Oh, this says it all, on the contrary. Stalin was claiming he would do things better than Lenin. Mao was claiming that he would do things better than Stalin. And the socialists of that time were all cheering for both of them, predicting glorious future for both countries. It's strange that socialists always seem to be wrong in the end, and come up with a rationale later on "oh, that's just because they didn't do it right... next time's will be the right time". Yeha, after killing another 20 million people in starvation, probably.

An other guy takes your idea (with some reverse engineering), build the same phones with 1.000.000$. He can create create 2000 Phones and sell each for 500$. So you will be probably out of bussissnes very soon.

You can try to solve this issue with: not sharing research results (which harms everyone) or do no research at all. Or an other economy model.

I'd say the opposite. Since the advent of the Internet there are actually more people than ever who are making additional income with stuff they sell by themselves.

And what exactly can you produce which can't be produced by a factory? I see at alibaba and aliexpress and co. more and more factory sales. Some resellers maybe, but not everyone can be a reseller. Since more people are buying stuff at amazon and co, more and more shops are closing. Mass production is almost allways cheaper then handmade stuff and a company like amazon could be more effective then a small 1 person shop, when its handling shipping and storing large amounts of goods.

Nothing's preventing companies to work on rare diseases, but the market is simply not there. That's why you have NGOs or government led research for what does not make commercial sense. But the issue with rare diseases is that it's hard to produce good scientific data when there's very few patients. I guess you can understand that. Statistics matter.

I think it matters more how much money your potential buyers have, then statistics. Research something against AIDS is very expensive, and mostly poorer people have it (not exclusive but look at africa). Bloodpressure is a desease many richer humans have and research is quite easy. The research for hair loss is too a "desease" which mostly wealthy people care about and lots of male people have hair loss.  Companies which would spend lots of money for basic research against AIDS and co., will have higher prices for their other medicaments and will disappear from the market.

Oh, this says it all, on the contrary. Stalin was claiming he would do things better than Lenin. Mao was claiming that he would do things better than Stalin. And the socialists of that time were all cheering for both of them, predicting glorious future for both countries. It's strange that socialists always seem to be wrong in the end, and come up with a rationale later on "oh, that's just because they didn't do it right... next time's will be the right time". Yeha, after killing another 20 million people in starvation, probably.

Industrialisation killed in western europe many people too. The SU and China was just later industrialized. And Mao was crazy (lets melt everything in ovens and hope for good steel) and Stalin was an asshole with didn't care of people dying. In the GDR and Cuba it worked quite ok with state runned agriculture. In Cuba it worked better when farmers could sell some % of their vegetables on the market and keep the money. This increased the production. And modern "socialsm" can use computers and the internet for getting the need of food. We are currently producing twice the amount of food needed to feed all humans. Every 2 seconds dies a human at malnutrition.

I don't consider "academic research" the work which is done by students until they graduate

A bachelor thesis (depends on the thesis) probably not, but a master thesis or the phd thesis is a scientific research.

Academic research is usually what is conducted by professors who stay in the academic field for the rest of their career.

I think the Postdocs and the Ph.D. students who are creating realy nice stuff will think different on this topic.

 

[Yoyobuae]

Patents have nothing to do with free markets. In case you don't know, patents are state-granted monopolies, and that's usually something frown upon by entrepreneurs and libertarians, for good reasons.

Oh ok, then I am sorry. But how would anyone do research in capitaslism when there are no patents?

Example:

You have 1.000.000 Dollars. You spend 500.000$ in developing a new mobile phone. You create 1000 mobile phones with the 500.000$ left. So every phone costs: 500$ (development costs) + 500$ (producing costs) = 1000$.

An other guy takes your idea (with some reverse engineering), build the same phones with 1.000.000$. He can create create 2000 Phones and sell each for 500$. So you will be probably out of bussissnes very soon.

You can try to solve this issue with: not sharing research results (which harms everyone) or do no research at all. Or an other economy model.

I would've would tried to contact that other guy first (in fact contact everyone potentially interested) and see if we can split the development costs.

In fact, I wouldn't even need to worry about producing the device. I would just need to contact enough people interested in selling their own mobile phones. I can offer them a mobile phone design customized with their brand and anything they need, in exchange for funding the development costs.

Once the device is fully developed, the specs would be released for everyone who wants to produce them.

Then I would start working on the next version of the device ...

If someone else shows up which also starts designing devices based on my previous work, then I would contact them to see if we can split the development effort. Even if they refuse to directly cooperate, releasing the designs under a GPL like license would force them to share whatever their derivative work.

Not sure if such a system would work in the real world, though.

 

[_wb_]

A dictator like Stalin and a "religious" regime like Mao China did wrong planing and let people starve (some people say about Stalin even on purpose). This says nothing about the public use of farm land.

Oh, this says it all, on the contrary. Stalin was claiming he would do things better than Lenin. Mao was claiming that he would do things better than Stalin. And the socialists of that time were all cheering for both of them, predicting glorious future for both countries.

I suggest you read some Trotsky and learn some basic political history (e.g. about the Left Opposition in the 1920s in Soviet Russia) before you make any further comments like that. It is insulting to me that you claim that all socialists, so also those that I consider to be my political ancestors, have cheered for Stalin or Mao. That is so obviously false that there can be only two reasons to make such a claim: intellectual dishonesty or ignorance.

It's a bit like saying that all Jews, gays and communists were cheering for Hitler. It's just as ridiculous a statement. Only people tend to know that part of history a bit better so they're less likely to make such a mistake.

Of course there have been and still are self-proclaimed socialists who have cheered for Stalin and Mao (and you can add Castro, Kim Il-sung and the other Kims in Korea, Hamas, and even Saddan Hussein and Gaddafi to that list). But those are either seriously misinformed people, or not actually socialists at all.

 

[WizardStan]

But how would anyone do research in capitaslism when there are no patents?

By producing the superior device.

 

[Mr_Loon]

Interesting stuff, good to read such erudite philosophical discussion, even if it is wildly off topic

Here's my take on it :

With projected advances in AI & robotics it's not to hard to imagine a paradigm shift in global economic terms within the next 50 years or so. A post scarcity economy could of course eventually lead to Utopia or Dystopia but it's hard to imagine that the transition period will be anything other than catastrophic for a lot people who will find that huge swathes of traditional employment opportunities no longer exist.

When we get to a point where it's possible to make a multi purpose robot that is capable of assembling a functional copy of itself from raw materials then that's when the shit will hit the fan / we enter a brave new world. Combine these robots with predicted improvements in AI systems and the end results are mind blowing. It seems reasonable to expect this to happen in the next 50 years. The eventual goal would probably be nano machines but even robots way bigger than the nano scale would still have profound implications.

In a best case scenario a post scarcity economy could lead to a socialist utopia where the concept of individual material gain is meaningless and people are able to 'work' for the good of society if they should desire to do so.

 

[rohezal]

But how would anyone do research in capitaslism when there are no patents?

By producing the superior device.

You can't produce a superior device in building quality with half of the funds of your "opponent". You would have to develop faster a new device then he can reverse engineer it build it too. This doesn't work, that is why there are patents in the capitalistic system (which means you forbid products to use the best technology avaible with no technical reason).

Not sure if such a system would work in the real world, though.

You can only do something like this if you are rich or have lots of free time. You need money (a share of the produced goods of this planet) to survive. You could live like this in a modern, automatized communistic economy system (see one page back).

 

[Morn]

or even numerous government run companies all around the world.

Let the Volkswagen, Renault, Embraer or POSCO be some clear examples

I suggest you read some Trotsky and learn some basic political history (e.g. about the Left Opposition in the 1920s in Soviet Russia) before you make any further comments like that.

You don't even need to reach that deep. One can just read Orwell's Animal Farm to see that not all socialists cherished Stalin.

 

[ramboky]

I don't consider "academic research" the work which is done by students until they graduate. That's part of the expectation for them to complete their studies. Academic research is usually what is conducted by professors who stay in the academic field for the rest of their career.

That's a false distinction which the entire of academia would disagree with.

 

[klapse]

One doesn't need to use Hitler, Stalin or Mao as examples of socialis governments gone bad. Cuba and Venezuela have huge problems due to central planning of the economy.

Or take China which went from a pure central planning model (poverty and starvation) to a market-oriented boom economy with a growing middle class and standard of living.. Or read up on the political and economic history of Hong Kong or SIngapore. Heck even Vietnam, where the communists won the war, has gone capitalist and has started the ladder up to prosperity.

Or compare East and West germany, an experiment with the same ethnic population under socialism versus capitalism.. which one of the two had to build a wall to prevent its people from fleeing? Or North and South Korea, anyone?

Our wanna-be Maos here suffer from ideogical filters that prevent them from seeing obvious historical reality. They think their prescription for "cutting up the pie" will lead to prosperity... just like central-planners since time immemorial.

 

[Yoyobuae]

Not sure if such a system would work in the real world, though.

You can only do something like this if you are rich or have lots of free time. You need money (a share of the produced goods of this planet) to survive. You could live like this in a modern, automatized communistic economy system (see one page back).

That's the thing. It's not just about the money.

Money in and by itself can't do much. Well, it can gain some interest over time but that's only a small percent amount per year.

People are what make money produce. So if a company can get all the right people working on a project, the money will just pour in as a result (ie. Occulus Rift).

My doubt is if whether patents and such are really needed for that to happen. Patents are good for the one company which owns the patents, but damaging against all other companies. Without patents all companies can benefit the same from innovation.

Different companies will apply the technology to their products in different ways. They'll market their products differently. They'll produce different quality products. They'll price them differently. I think there's enough room for companies to differentiate and be competitive without having to rely on a mechanism such as patents to be successful.

 

[Klumpen]

Without patents all companies can benefit the same from innovation.

And no innovator can get much for his ideas and research, great... more chinese knockoffs...

 

[Yoyobuae]

Without patents all companies can benefit the same from innovation.

And no innovator can get much for his ideas and research, great... more chinese knockoffs...

Are you sure?

Yeah, innovators wont be selling their ideas anymore. But innovations would still be valuable, the problems they solve won't just go away.

If companies won't pay any money to innovators to continue creating, then they will just create on their own accord. I don't creativity is like a water tap which can simply be closed: "Starting today I'm going to stop getting great ideas".

Anyway, I don't really think the demand for innovations would go down if patents go away. It might go up even, since companies can no longer rely on patents to hold their competitors back, so they need to "out innovate" them instead.

And about "more chinese knockoffs", why so concerned about them? Surely the original company can produce a better quality product. And if the chinese can produce same quality product at lower production costs, then why not outsource production to them?

Also I didn't say that trademarks and branding should be abolished too. That's what really makes knockoff products detrimental, they plagiarize the branding (but fail to deliver the same quality).

 

[WizardStan]

You can't produce a superior device in building quality with half of the funds of your "opponent". You would have to develop faster a new device then he can reverse engineer it build it too.

You're adding restrictions and changing the question, predicting future events that you can't possibly know anything about based on hearsay at best. You asked how a company could invest in a new product and still make a profit while competition doesn't need the same investment, the answer is quite simply "build the better product". That is it, that is how you do it. There are a lot of ways to be better: simply being first can very often automatically make you better. It heavily depends on the product as well.

 

[rohezal]

Our wanna-be Maos here suffer from ideogical filters that prevent them from seeing obvious historical reality. They think their prescription for "cutting up the pie" will lead to prosperity... just like central-planners since time immemorial.

Cuba and Venezuela have huge problems due to central planning of the economy.

What you learn in school depends on the country and system you are living in. What you read in the newspaper and see on tv depends on the sam ething. You hear at lot bad stuff from Cuba and Venezuella which are exaggerated. Both countries have problems and Castro and Maduro aren't the most freedom friendly presidents. But if you compare Venezuelle to Columbia or Cuba to other 3 World Countries, both countries are the countries I would choose to live in. And they have to suffer from direct and indirect actions of the USA against them. 

But you are right, central planning works, but not as good as market demands for some things. But since we live in the 21th centurie, you don't need to plan centraly and static, but try to act like amazon and react to customers demand and most buyed stuff. With state owned companies.

My doubt is if whether patents and such are really needed for that to happen. Patents are good for the one company which owns the patents, but damaging against all other companies. Without patents all companies can benefit the same from innovation.

Different companies will apply the technology to their products in different ways. They'll market their products differently. They'll produce different quality products. They'll price them differently. I think there's enough room for companies to differentiate and be competitive without having to rely on a mechanism such as patents to be successful.

I took me over a year to get it. We are living in a system of survival of the fittest. Like evolution. Imagine you have 2 kinds of "animals" with 1000K dollars each. The first "animal" must first spend 500K dollars to invent something and has just 500K left to produce it. The other "animal" which can just copy the invention of the first "animal" and use all of the 1000K dollars to "hunt" and "reproduce". Which kind of animal will become the dominant specy? Most probably the second one. And then go down because without the first one, it can't invent new things.

This would happen in the current system when no patents are enforced. But if you look at it outside of the current system, you are right. "Different companies will apply the technology to their products in different ways." More and better products could be created. So if we would change the economy system from "survival of the fittest" to "cooperative working" you can invent stuff and still live from it.

And no innovator can get much for his ideas and research, great...

A Ph. D. of my university who worked for NVidia told us some stories. First: innovators don't get much for their ideas. Second: You use patents to stop other companies to develop stuff and hindering them. Third: you use patents you own to defend yourself from the claims of other companies.

The lawyers earned more then the leading engineer. And patents are almost all holded by big companies. As small guy you are realy f***ed.

An example is this patent troll (end of the story he won, against the inventor of the idea): https://blog.fefe.de/?ts=ac6de75a

If companies won't pay any money to innovators to continue creating, then they will just create on their own accord. I don't creativity is like a water tap which can simply be closed: "Starting today I'm going to stop getting great ideas".

Anyway, I don't really think the demand for innovations would go down if patents go away. It might go up even, since companies can no longer rely on patents to hold their competitors back, so they need to "out innovate" them instead.

 Yes it would help innovation, but the researchers can't make any money (instead of a bit like in the current system). To make a system of free knowledge where you can invent useful stuff for the public and have a good life, you need an other economy system, which must replace the economy system we currently have.

You asked how a company could invest in a new product and still make a profit while competition doesn't need the same investment, the answer is quite simply "build the better product". That is it, that is how you do it. There are a lot of ways to be better: simply being first can very often automatically make you better. It heavily depends on the product as well.

 

 

If my "opponent" can copy my product, I can't build a better product, if we have the same amount of money and I have to pay research costs. The only thing I could do, is being faster. But that's it. And depending on the product the development costs are the biggest factor of the product (Computer Chips, Medicine etc).

 

[WizardStan]

If my "opponent" can copy my product, I can't build a better product

So you say, and yet in the absence of patents it still happens. Smart phones are prime example.But it still doesn't matter. You asked "how". I told you how. If you can't even imagine a world in which you can build a better product than your competition then perhaps you don't deserve to be in business.