I still think that:

>t. college compsci commie

Attached: kek.jpg (432x424, 9K)

Forced communism isn't freedom, you fucking dolt.

you obviously have no idea how many traps and prohibitions are in patent law shit. remember how apple managed to patent curves on phones? this is utter bullshit and can't be fixed.

>So what's the alternative, someone has an Idea but the bigger player can out produce the inventor leaving him with nothing?

There are other ways inventors can be rewarded even financially without the need of prohibiting patents. you simply lack imagination/ the will to fix things.

a) Suddenly there's no money in development, your Jim Kellers become doctors and lawyers, nothing gets made.

b) So now not only will no hardware be developed, but profit will be evacuated from software development also. 2 for 2 on stupid shit, well done.

c) No it won't, though privacy is important.

d) Engineering is too complex to teach to children, higher education exists for a reason.

e) Shut the fuck up you useless retarded commie scumbag. There is no shortage of results as it is right now. Fuck off.

fuck you! Because most americans are really that stupid I can't tell whenver you're trolling or really belive that. I'm OPOSING communism.

Now I answered this twice, unless actual arguments come I'll just ignore commie comments.

a) wrong, as people/ business still need something and pay for it's development

b) see a)

c) it should

d) kick out gender studies and create an actual path of education that includes engineering/programming

e) they invest in development right now, that's true. about how to better control people, abolish even more privacy and basically making lists on who to gulag. that's not what the consumer wants but those communists behind the scenes.

>a) technology patents should be abolished so everyone who wants and is able to can produce (for example CPUs) without getting shut down.

Why would anyone make any product if their shit can be copied?

OK, let's go to fantasyland for a moment. Without patents protecting your investment, how would you recoup the losses from R&D? You do know Intel, VIA, AMD, Qualcomm, and so forth, are responsible for a huge amount of people that need to be paid accordingly. Describe how new products would help the developer in their business model without patents.

and then there would be no incentive to invest time and resources into making a good product

because there is need for it? because some wanted to make it? because someone got paid to make it for someone?

Then who the fuck would pour their money into R&D instead of just waiting for someone else to innovate and ride on it for free?

a) That is not how demand-driven economies work.

b) Whatever, you'll never see sense on that.

c) I should be rich and not have to work.

d) It's called maths, I'm an engineer, engineering is too complex to teach to children. Maths is the path to engineering.

e)"they invest in development right now, that's true." Thank you for conceding.

There would be literally 0 reason for companies to invest in R&D, less R&D means less new technology. less new technology means less demand
kys dumb commieposter

oh, you mean development of spectre bugs and management engine? I already said, there can be other incentived for development and making inventions other that getting patent "protection".

OK! SO there's demand. Buuut you don't have patents, and everything is open source!
So then, Chinaman X builds the same for less. And so does AMD. And VIA.
Your awesome product is now in the market under another's brand. For cheap.

Solve this problem.

Nothing you said explains who would pay for R&D.
It makes zero sense as a business to invest in R&D while anyone can just ride along and get all the profits without the investment. It would make sense to wait for someone else to do it.
New tech would be likely funded only by the government, through universities.

this reads like some entitled 15 year old’s socialist phase manifesto
sure you’re old enough to post here kid?

a) like you never paid somone to fix your car or install pipes in your house. providing a paid service is not fullfilling a demand?

b)because I actually thought about it and want to fix things?

c) play the lottery or something, rob a bank

d) better schools, more capable children/teenagers. I also wrote "path to" previously and I'm not demanding children to design cpus.

e)you're an asshole, probably a jew too.

>these shitty auto mechanic/plumber comparisons
oh so you’re just a moron who worships the Red Hat model as a universal panacea but doesn’t actually understand it? makes sense now

it’s incredible to me that people are even bothering to argue with such an uninformed and ignorant shitty opinion

What the fuck man, I'm trying to picture what's going on your head.
Just how do you think that would work? So there's a demand for better CPUs, then what? I hire an engineer to design a CPU, pay him good money, then I have to give this design I paid for to my competitors? For free? Why?

You're confusing R&D with paying a service. When you pay for a service, you expect a problem to be solved in a single payment, more often than not. Materials are provided by yourself at a loss, through your own funding, to achieve an expected result. R&D requires people offering a service to develop something yet unknown, with materials provided by you at a loss, through your own funding, to try to achieve what you intend to find. This is not guaranteed, and will require you to repeat the same process until you find what you are looking for. This means you will be spending considerably more than just paying for a service with an defined result.
That's why R&D is costly. That's why it needs to be locked down for third parties, until you can recoup the cost. That's why patents exist, and also have an expiration date.
You have a beef with patents that might be legitimate. But you're so fucking confused that you come off as an ignorant communist.

>why
1. anyone capable can fix bugs
2. next desgin can be based to most efficient and useful previous invention and doesn't have to hide it's usage in NDAs or develop around the patents
3. if you do good job designing you'll probably be paid again for another job doing the next one

>1. anyone capable can fix bugs
For free? It better be because I ain't paying for it, ask the guy at VIA to pay.
>2. next desgin can be based to most efficient and useful previous invention and doesn't have to hide it's usage in NDAs or develop around the patents
Why though? It takes work, time and money to optimize something, I can just keep selling this product I already have and that everyone else is selling.
>3. if you do good job designing you'll probably be paid again for another job doing the next one
Wait, I'm getting paid? I'm the company making these chips, remember? Who's paying me to develop tech?

I'm not confusing anything. I see nothing wrong with development as a service.

Someone wants a problem solved, and somebody else is providing a service to solve it. there can be reports and what-not to prove to the customer they're no lazy bums simply recieving money.

That's it.

However there can still be a "I have a problem - who can solve it?" and "I can solve it if you pay me" service that produces results in single payment.

Are you aware of the problems nVidia had with the Fermi chip yields? Or Intel for that matter?
Who exactly do you think is going to answer for a bad, but unavoidable, R&D decision? The materials lost to bad batches? The government? The FSF? The consumer, with a ridiculously priced product?
Are you thinking this thoroughly? Do you think manpower is the only cost-incurring issue here?

You’re absolutely fucking retarded.

>For free
no, paid by those affected by the bugs?

>optimize
well, if there is no demand why do it? no it wouldn't make sense to do something nobody needs unless you're a communist getting paid anyway for shit or you're just somone who enjoys his hobby.

>who
somone is demanding the new desgin, that someone has to pay for it. it really makes no difference if the chip producer employs the engineer or the customer.

this is not trolling
needs more effort. Try again 0/10

production =/= R&D

if someone produces something with faulty incomplete research it's obviously the producers fault for doing stupid shit.

remember it's also open and can be peer reviewd and shit. you can also employ somone to check the results of reseach. the rest is matter of contracts and stuff.

> it's obviously the producers fault for doing stupid shit.
Look, I humored you, but all your arguments are poorly informed, and it is evident you do not know the least bit about R&D.
>remember it's also open and can be peer reviewd and shit.
And who is testing this? Theory =/= practice. It is also evident you've never delved into proper research.

How the fuck does any portion of this incoherent, terrible idea sound good to you? You want to basically make consumers and hobbyists even more irrelevant than they already are in a world where only megacorporations with no technical background and shitloads of money to burn can meaningfully influence technological advancement, provided they even care for it at all. You want to further fragment the market and encourage vendor lock-in and other predatory practices, you want to put the entire industry in the hands of the wealthy few who can afford to run a fab.

You’re seriously a fucking idiot, go fuck yourself.

Let's shift the situation a bit.
People need to locomote, they want cars. Cars need oil. There's the problem.
So you want to provide this service, of providing oil. But you'll need an oil rig, and that's expensive. In the real world very few companies have the capital needed to build and operate an oil rig. But ok, you can pitch in with a lot of investors who also want to get in this business and solve people's need for oil, and in exchange you say they can also use the rig, or get a participation in your business.
But wait, isn't this a bit like patents? Only those who paid would be able to use it. What you are proposing here is someone pays for the oil rig and ANYONE can go there and get the oil, without having invested a penny.
In this world of yours no one would invest in making an oil rig (with the exception of the government, who cheats with taxes), even if there's money to be made from it.

How do you handle copyright?

>resarch is only theory nobody ever tests if shit works
please...

When a board like Jow Forums unanimously agrees that you are retarded, it's time to shut up, pack up, and leave.

Technology patents aren't the main reason intel or amd stays on top, its because you need an abs fuck ton of money for anything related to processor dev (R&D) and production. The entry cost alone is enough to scare anybody dumb enough to try it away.

>no r&d
this argument is completely "muh roads" tier

Attached: downloadfile.jpg (300x400, 31K)

copyright like patents is shit and must be removed.

there is no need for it, if you get paid for making something.

>technology patents should be abolished
I agree.
>everything must be opensource.
I disagree. Companies still want to make a good deal of profit on their labour.
>stricter privacy laws and havier punishment.
I agree in principle, but this isn't the way to go about it. There's always going to be an alternative. You should have to compete in a free market.
>technology, not just usage of it, must be teached in schools mandatory.
Schools should have the ability to teach whatever they want. Making it mandatory just forces them to either hire another expensive teacher or force another teacher to work teaching this field.
>a nation/world wide aid program (financial/ knowhow) for new technology, science and start ups
Foreign aid doesn't work. It's a waste of money stolen from the citizens.

Yes, I know that. We come full circle with costs. You make a hypothesis, test results, then release results. These aren't junior high experiments, these are delicate, expensive, time consuming tests. Your peer review implies someone else also did those expensive tests. You won't settle for one confirmation study, unless your wafer yields are satisfactory. Your yields...
You know, to know how well production is doing would require multiple photolithography tests, wouldn't you think? Who is paying for both the original developer, and the peer reviewer's tests? I'm sure someone is. The problem is, once it works, you are releasing it without patents; everything is also open source. VIA didn't spend a single cent in R&D, but now has access to it, and will sell it for half the price.
How do you recoup the costs? This is the third time this has been asked, without an answer from wonderboy.

you paid for getting oil, you got oil. no need to over complicate things. technology/knowledge unlike actual resources aren't limited or getting exhaused when more people recieve it.

I dunno man, for all it's flaws you can't deny that the USSR went from a shitty, uneducated, agrarian shithole in 1924 to an industrial superpower in 1939 that was able to defeat Nazi Germany and then from 1950 engaged in a space and arms race against the NATO block. While this was going on the living standards in the USSR were steadily rising.

>recoup the costs
again, someone paid for the research. if you provide a reseach service that doesn't cover your costs you're doing it wrong.

contracts and contract law would still exist without copyright and patents.
you want something you pay for it.

>copyright must be removed
Should the state write books then? Or ask authors to write, or else send these authors to the gulag?

Attached: 1503572618229.png (621x702, 56K)

Who paid for it? A faceless megacorporation? Sure as fuck wasn’t a consumer.

Nice! How is this benefactor recouping costs? After all, this guy just spent 2 billion on research, so how is he profiting from this? VIA is now owner of 15% of the market because of bad yields, but AMD just fired up production, and they are doing great, at 46% of the market!
That's leaving you with 39% of market share. You, the one that hired Mr. Moneybags to fund your new CPU. Sure, you just need to sell them; you didn't lose anything. But one thing is certain. Mr. Moneybags won't be supporting another project of yours, because the ROI is miserable, and very distant. And of course, Mr. Moneybags has no right to claim anything gained by AMD or VIA.

Spoken like a true child.

>living standards rising
after war casulties and stalin killing around 60 Million christians, while still letting most of the poplulation be piss poor and hungry... some select few actually improved their living standards!? Unbelivable!

>guy just spent
it can be, but it doesn't have to be one guy. it actually can be a corporation that needs that technology for doing their business. it doesn't have to be the corporation that produces that particular technology.

>technology patents should be abolished so everyone who wants and is able to can produce
That is a contradictory statement.
Abolishing parents simply means companies won't share their secrets, thus you get the EXACT opposite of what you want.
Patents ARE the way in which companies share their secrets.

>everything must be opensource.
Absurd thought, impossible to happen.

>stricter privacy laws and havier punishment
Won't do anything, if it even will happen.

>technology, not just usage of it, must be teached in schools mandatory.
Irrelevant.

>a nation/world wide aid program (financial/ knowhow) for new technology, science and start ups. one that makes sense and produces results.
That is a really dumb idea, I do not see what COULD even be the point of it.

>Yeah, that's kinda it.
You are proposing an enormous and idiotic program.

Your insanity lies in the belief that ANY institution with power would even want this.
No government would want stricter privacy, no government wants open source.

>copyright like patents is shit and must be removed.
Not if you care about companies giving away their secrets.

>if you get paid for making something
A company doesn't get payed for an R & D success.
They invest billions, either they keep it a secret, or they share it conditionally.
This sharing is called a patent.

how about the one that needs a book to be written. if an author simply writes something and releases it he's doing this on his own risk and there can not be a gurantee it will sell in the first place.

however if you produce/sell books you probably want to pay an author to write something so you have something to sell.

Who would put millions into research then if once they make a new innovation, other jews just mass produce the products they researched.

Replace Mr. Moneybags with whichever corporation.
Remember, after they fund the CPU, they're going to use it. It follows that they will want a piece of the production then. That will affect your supply, and you won't be able to meet the 39% market share. But, since this is open source and without patents, ARM will gladly take your place for whatever order you cannot fulfill.
Here's a better solution! You use a patent, you are the sole provider of this product for a set amount of years, own 100% market share for that specific product, with a price tag that fits your projected sales and ROI. Considering you did a good market analysis, you won't be hurting when the patent expires in 6 years.
Now THIS I can agree with. Keep the patents, but make them expire in a sensible amount of time, releasing some data to the public. You can't go spilling all the beans, mind you, but you could release info after some decades until you have the complete schematics and procedures to produce a chip 15 years later.

>won't share their secrets
what get's one the market must be open, no place for secrets.

>absurd, dumb, won't happen
you're jewish, right?

>muh gorillion
If Stalin killed 60 million then why did the population of the USSR grow from 1920 onwards? I'm not going to spoonfeed you, kid. Statistics on living conditions in the USSR are available online. Look for it or remain ignorant, doesn't matter to me.

Attached: Screenshot_2018-05-08-07-17-49.png (1080x1920, 164K)

>if an author simply writes something and releases it he's doing this on his own risk and there can not be a gurantee it will sell in the first place.
That is an enormous fallacy right there.
"Not every product is successful therefore giving all products away for free is okay".

>how about the one that needs a book to be written
Have you ever read a book?

patents are fucking domain squatters, you just need to draw some squiggles, pretend you invented something, and Sue the pants off someone who actually did.

someone who needs the innovation and doesn't who produces it if it fits the need

>jews actually doing production work
lel

>what get's one the market must be open, no place for secrets.
And how are you gonna do that, regularly send military to investigate whether a company has made a new invention?

This proposal is insane, it is impossible to implement and naive beyond belief.

>you're jewish, right?
No, the exact opposite is true.
I am a third generation Holocaust perpetrator.

>why did the population of the USSR grow
those not killed or dying by starvation made children?

No, that is not how patents work.
Your delusion is not an argument, although you are right that there are some problems with parents, which are outweighed by the alternative.
The alternative being all companies keep their secrets.

Hur durr muh randdee isn't an argument either

there is a demand for technology = the free market supplies it

no corporate welfare necessary.

fuck off

Exponential growth. You could kill off 60M and have 60M breed to have 3 to 5 children per household, and safely get to 209M in 20 years.

Attached: faggot.png (532x329, 31K)

>spend $9 billion developing a new processor
>have to sell it at cost because some communist thinks that everyone now has the right to sell it.

>patent law is pathological
>therefore, let's just get rid of patents! because coming up with sensible policy and regulations is hard!
dumb fucking faggot

>investigate company
if you buy something and the source is not avaible, bingo, criminal acticity detected.

you say "then they keep it secret", who cares as long as it's not produced? If it get's produced they need workers. workers most often don't want to produce things that laws prohibit because it makes them criminals. criminals probably don't care but then again criminals will always exist in one way or another and police fighting them.

Fuck off statist bitch.

If population grew from 137M in 1920 to 182M in 1951 and 60M died, that means that 137M people had to have had (45+60)=105M children. That means that while this mass killings were going on the population have to have doubled. But how could it if they were all starving and living in shitty conditions?

Most of these arguments against the USSR don't even hold up logically, let alone historically.

>populations grow exponentially
Think about that statement for a moment. Not every single person in a population is of child-bearing age, you have children and old people who make up a large part of it. Besides, for it to grow exponentially people would have to do nothing but breed. While Stalin went around hospitals killing newborns and having parents make more.

Again, if USSR was such a shithole where everyone starved how could they have had exponential growth in population?

You are literally braindead.
The relationship between cost to create something and revenue gained should be easy to comprehend.

>pay me for this broken product
>>uh there's a bug
>pay me to fix it
genius.

>>investigate company
>if you buy something and the source is not avaible, bingo, criminal acticity detected.
What source?
A chair doesn't have a source code.
Also the manufacturing PROCESS is the important thing.

>you say "then they keep it secret", who cares as long as it's not produced?
Innovation is not the same as a new product.

>If it get's produced they need workers. workers most often don't want to produce things that laws prohibit because it makes them criminals. criminals probably don't care but then again criminals will always exist in one way or another and police fighting them.
No worker could possibly comprehensive whether their manufacturing process is new or old.

You are delusional, absolutely delusional.

you can’t argue with a guy like this based on reality because he does not exist in it, he will just replace whatever you say with something that feeds his delusional fantasy and discard that which is inconvenient
notice how he focuses primarily on you in particular and ignores other posts directed at him as an example, he cannot face that which is inconvenient to hear, much like the jewish sheep he thinks he is not one of

the inventor doesn't have to be the producer

Ok, not exponentially. But I provided the statistics for the average size of family. 25% of the population had at least 3 kids in 1959, and 36% in 1939. Family size did decrease noticeably up until 1989, which proves how shitty conditions were. But 20 years allows for a new generation to be born, or even two. I don't think rural areas waited for girls to be 18; they could as well fuck the girls at 14 or 13 years of age.

Yes, but look at how much money companies spend on their R & D.

What academia produces is often already open so a non issue.

why did he buy a broken product in the first place?

they do if they want to be compensated for their work in your delusional dreamland

People who believe so hard in their idealistic delusions explain to how the world got so fucked up and how communists can exist to this day.

Think about what you're saying: you're saying people were fucking children only to keep up with the dwindling population numbers due to State-orchestrated mass killings. C'mon, be real.

Whoever paid for it still wants ROI.
You know what would happen in this world of yours? The only sound investment would be in commodities or services. Agriculture, mining, oil would take most of the money.
Industry would be the last priority for investors.

A better argument would be that WW2 killed like 20 million russians, mostly males, and so the population was unnaturally low, but female population wasn't. Birth rate would be tied to quantity of females and so the birth rate was actually rather constant but the mass death due to WW2 caused it to look like it was a much bigger population boom when in reality it was just normal growth.

have you ever bought or downloaded or installed or otherwise acquired a product/software to later realize that something which should work one way was working a different way or not at all?
if not, allow me to hire you to predict lottery numbers

have you ever developed a piece of software only to later discover tha-
nevermind. you've clearly never done anything that can be classified as productive in your entire life.

they didn't get compensated for doing the invention? why?

only because it's invented it doesn't mean he must give the invention away for free. he can simply sell it.

>if an author simply writes something and releases it he's doing this on his own risk and there can not be a gurantee it will sell in the first place.
holy fucking shit i didn't think it was possible to have an IQ this low and still be able to solve a captcha

The same type of people that build FOSS

point d) education should provide people with the ability to understand what they're doing. if it's open source, you can actually look if it's doing what you want it to do. if you didn't then nobody is at fault but yourself. if someone produces something broken to begin with (as in it isn't equal to the source) it's probably illegal and that company must be responisible for it.

Literal commie opinions
Give people the freedom to do what they wish and back whatever company they prefer