this post was submitted on 23 Oct 2024
744 points (98.9% liked)

Technology

59549 readers
3210 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related content.
  3. Be excellent to each another!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed

Approved Bots


founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] moon@lemmy.cafe 78 points 4 weeks ago (1 children)

The free market is going very well here

[–] explodicle@sh.itjust.works 33 points 4 weeks ago (3 children)

This is 100% capitalism. It's not free market to have a goverment-enforced monopoly.

[–] chakan2@lemmy.world 42 points 4 weeks ago (9 children)

This is textbook late stage free market ideals at work. This is how the free market always ends.

[–] FinalRemix@lemmy.world 26 points 4 weeks ago (7 children)

X - ~~The system is broken.~~

✅ - The system is working exactly as intended and must be destroyed.

load more comments (7 replies)
[–] explodicle@sh.itjust.works 2 points 4 weeks ago

When did it start?

load more comments (7 replies)
[–] ConsistentParadox@lemmy.ml 14 points 4 weeks ago (2 children)

You are correct. There would be no copyrights or patents in a free market.

[–] lud@lemm.ee 6 points 4 weeks ago (1 children)

Yeah, the huge companies would dominate over small companies even more than they already do.

[–] ConsistentParadox@lemmy.ml 8 points 4 weeks ago (1 children)

Copyrights and patents are literally government enforced monopolies for huge companies. Without them, there would be a lot more competition.

[–] lud@lemm.ee 9 points 4 weeks ago (2 children)

Really? Calling it a government enforced monopoly seems very disingenuous.

Good luck trying to make a movie without Disney stealing it or making an invention with really effective solar panels or something without the biggest companies stealing it and bankrupt the original creator.

Copyright and patents protect everyone involved in creation and while there are a LOT of problems with the systems. Removing it entirely seems like the biggest overcorrection possible.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] barsoap@lemm.ee 2 points 4 weeks ago (3 children)

Or trade secrets. "Perfect information" is a bitch. Not to speak of "perfectly rational actors": Say goodbye to advertisement, too, we'd have to outlaw basically all of it.

[–] frezik@midwest.social 2 points 4 weeks ago* (last edited 4 weeks ago) (1 children)

Trade secrets don't need to be enforced much by law. You can create an ad hoc trade secret regime by simply keeping your secret between a few key employees. As it happens, there are some laws that go beyond that to help companies keep the secret, but that only extends something that could happen naturally.

[–] barsoap@lemm.ee 1 points 4 weeks ago (1 children)

To get closer to the free market there would have to be a duty to disclose any- and everything that's now a trade secret, no matter how easily kept. To not just get closer but actually get there we all would need to be telepathic. As said, perfect information is a bitch of a concept.

[–] lud@lemm.ee 4 points 4 weeks ago (11 children)

Being free to innovate and keep your own ideas to yourself sounds like it should be part of the free market though.

Forcing people to disclose their (mental) secrets seems bizarre.

load more comments (11 replies)
[–] Peruvian_Skies@sh.itjust.works 1 points 4 weeks ago* (last edited 4 weeks ago)

To be fair, we absolutely should outlaw at least 99% of all currently practiced forms of advertising and make it so that new forms of advertising have to be whitelisted by a panel of psychiatrists, sociologists, environmentalists and urban planners before they're allowed.

[–] avidamoeba@lemmy.ca 1 points 4 weeks ago (3 children)

Are you telling me that the axioms behind the simplistic model are wrong?? shocked-pikachu.jpg

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] Maggoty@lemmy.world 9 points 4 weeks ago* (last edited 4 weeks ago) (2 children)

What's government enforced about it? Is ARM the only allowed chip designer for cellphones?

[–] fushuan@lemm.ee 1 points 4 weeks ago (1 children)

license enforcement is a thing because if someone bypasses it you can sue them, which is a government interaction. Technically, claiming X means nothing if there's no one that enforces your claim.

[–] Maggoty@lemmy.world 2 points 4 weeks ago (2 children)

Yes but that rule protects you the same as it does them. They can be a monopoly if nobody else can get their chips sold but they cannot be a government enforced monopoly unless nobody else is allowed to sell chips.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] explodicle@sh.itjust.works 1 points 4 weeks ago (3 children)
[–] Maggoty@lemmy.world 5 points 4 weeks ago (26 children)

That's not a government enforced monopoly. A government enforced monopoly means nobody else is allowed in the market. Like utility companies.

[–] Overshoot2648@lemm.ee 5 points 4 weeks ago

Lots of Utilities are consumer cooperatives which is funnily enough Socialist, but the people working there wouldn't like to hear that.

load more comments (25 replies)
load more comments (2 replies)