What if I spend 10 years designing a widget, and sell widgets? Do you feel that by selling the widget I am also selling the design, and the right to manufacture my widget?
Do you think that by selling them an object, you can dictate what they do with their skills and materials? If they can determine the design from your widget, they can manufacture it. You can't sell them that right, because they already have it.
If your widget is sufficiently complex that it took you 10 years to design it, it should take quite some time for the new owner to reverse-engineer it, and gear up for competition, if he so desires. During that time, you have a monopoly on that widget. I suggest you exploit it. First to market is your competitive advantage.
You can restrict the new owner from reverse-engineering the widget via contract, if you want, or you can build anti-tamper measures into the widget itself, both will buy you some more time, but eventually someone's going to break that contract, or bypass the anti-tamper measures, and ferret out your design. If they broke a contract, then you can take the measures provided for in the contract for breach against the person who broke it, but if he, rather than manufacturing it himself, spreads the design far and wide, you can't exact anything from those third parties who get the design.
Bottom line is: You want a limited-term monopoly on the manufacture and sale of the widget? You got it, until someone reverse engineers it and tools up to manufacture it.
So, Thomas Edison spent 1000's of hours of trial and error before he came up with a tungsten filament for a light bulb, and you maintain that anyone should be able to profit from his work, right off the bat.
If they can copy the design and the metallurgy, sure. That's more work than you seem to think.
The system you propose would result in large monopolies controlling production; If a small outfit makes a design, a large outfit could easily reverse-engineer it and manufacture the widget on a larger scale.
Possibly. And cheaper, too. I don't see that as a problem. A smart design firm would just sell the design directly to the large firm, rather than trying to compete with them.
I'm afraid we must agree to disagree here, as what you propose will result in this: A low-liquidity outfit/entrepreneur sinks his millions of dollars and thousands of hours designing a widget and bringing it to market, and an outfit flush with liquidity then out-competes him because the outfit who designed the widget needs time to develop HIS market for HIS product design, whereas the liquidity-rich outfit already has a ready-made market due to it's financial power.
Again, a smart man would just sell his design, because if there is a large enough market, the larger firm can outcompete him anyway. Of course, he
could try to exploit his monopoly on the manufacture while it lasts, but it might not be enough to recoup his R&D loss.
What you propose is theft, which I feel is evident from the result it would have on the marketplace, and the players therein.
Copying is not theft. What you propose is allowing those big monopolies to purchase the rights and charge whatever they want for it until the patent expires. Mine is fairer to the consumer, and if the big company starts charging more than the original inventor can make profit on, he can go back into competing with them, and make a good bit of profit.
I'm a bit of a windbag myself, so don't mind me if I try to use logic to show him the folly of his ways. That being said, if you could provide me with links to discussions you've had with this...anarchist..., post 'em, so I don't wind up re-inventing the wheel, as it were. BTW are you an AnCap as well?
Blablahblah is just a troll. But I did have a great conversation with a left-anarchist in the "Libertarian my ass!" thread:
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/libertarian-my-ass-160726And yes, I am AnCap as well.
, and the N.A.P. scripture is only there to rationalise it to the unbelievers.