Lessig preaches openness to Flash faithful

TalkBack 18 of 44:: Next »; « Previous

Thread View
Flat View

Starting at shadows.: You invented what frightened you. Relax.

When I wrote:
But the issue here is not the normal course of business.

I was talking about the intentional confiscation of the value of a piece of software by an imitator. Not a price cut. Settle down.

When I wrote:
It's someone seeing a good idea earning money for its inventor who decides that this should not continue.

I was in fact referring to:
You can't possinly think that there are these underhanded devious losers out there who simply can't stand that someone is making money off a product and wish to deliberately derail their entrepreneurial success.

Oh yes.
Tell you what, if open source projects that imitate successful proprietary products don't exist, then my criticism applies to no one. I won't even try to identify any such projects, okay? That should help you sleep nights.

By contrast, I do approve of this type work, of course, (not that my approval has much relevance):

What if you're a programmer and do not like the current offerings of software and want to write your own so it has the features you
are looking for and works the way you want it?

That's great. Sounds like an innovation others might find useful. If it's significant enough you could get paid for it. Just do yourself a favor and protect it, with a patent if you can. Because otherwise someone could take away your chance to make money.

But you do miss the implications of your own statement here:
But if something can be made free then is SHOULDN'T any longer have monetary value..no???

C'mon. That's like saying, if I can get away with your money, then it's not stealing any longer. Stealing an idea is the same thing; if the theft is successful, that doesn't make it right. The issue doesn't have to do with air and water. More to do with the money in your pocket.

See, once you understand, it's not so bad.

Then you combine a couple of ideas. It's the chimera that scares you, but don't worry, the monster doesn't exist.

First you say:
So a competitor is NEVER allowed to undercut his competition? I'm not permitted to offer something for nothing merely because some stranger (yourself) won't any longer make money off of it?

Yes, of course, when two companies or people are legally making a product, then they can compete on price. One way to compete is to offer some products for free or much discounted while selling others. It's called a loss leader, sometimes a lagniappe. I agree. That's not so bad, right?

The problem comes when you leap to:
Competitors MUST be FORCED to charge for their products, and they MUST charge them at at least the same rates as their competitors?

See what I mean about an invented monster? Did I ever come close to saying that?

Maybe the confusion comes from this: let's say I make the mistake of not patenting a software invention, or can't for some reason.
You realize that you could write a program that does the same job, the same way.
Would you write that program and not charge for it?
You do know that producing that free version would reduce someone else's income. You also know that a reduction in income damages people.

Would you, in your more lucid moments, take an action that you knew would harm someone else at no gain to you? Even with gain to you? I expect not.

What we're looking at here is not market competition, it's simply malevolence, by the losers you were describing.

But then, I'll let you see under the bed. See, no one would actually do that, open source true believer or not, right?

Good, good.

Tell you what I'll leave the light on, and promise I'll return to answer any additional posts, okay?

By the way, knowing "factoids" is not a sign of wisdom, even erudition. But they do pop up when you're reading seriously.; Posted by: Anton Philidor Posted on: 04/08/05 You are currently: a Guest | Members login | Terms of Use