4 hours ago, Maddus Mattus wrote
You don't seem to know what "has to" means. I said "When did I say it has to be based on four year terms?" It can be a 1-year term, 2-year term, 4-year term, etc. I used "4-year term" just as an example, like our US presidential terms. The point is that in real democracies, the winner of elections serve "TERMS". That's the operative word, but you play dumb and argue about the "4-year" part.
This is exactly what you do. It's clockwork. When you know your argument has utterly failed, you start splitting hairs. I've pointed this out to you time and time again, yet it doesn't sink in. You're more interested in getting the last word instead of actually winning the debate.
Yes it does, no more money(votes), no more company.
Reading comprehension problem. I said just because one company makes less money than another company doesn't mean the company that makes less money has to go away. The company making less money can continue in operation making less money than the company that makes more money.
In a real democracy, if you lose an election by even one vote, it's "Buh-bye. See ya! Don't come back until I've served my term, be it a 4- year or 6-year or 2-year term."
Again, it's a stupid metaphor. Stop using it.
Like I said, patent is a monopoly where you can force the other party to either pay up or bury them in court cases. Call it a "licensing deal", I see things for what they are.
No, you see things in distorted Fantasyland ways and far from reality.
As a consumer, you should expect to have to pay to buy, rent/hire, or use a product. If it's not priced to your satisfaction, don't pay. Go look for another product, or go ahead and steal it. Go right ahead. Nobody is physically stopping you. You don't go to jail unless you're caught.
As a company wanting to license somebody else's invention, you should expect to have to poay as well. If it's not priced to your satisfaction, go look for another invention to license. Or go ahead steal it. You want it for free, but nobody is forcing you to pay. So steal it. You can't be sued unless you're caught.
It's their choice to do a race to the bottom. If they think they can sustain a higher price in the market because of added value and quality of the product, they don't have to compote solely on price.
When everybody copies from each other with no penalty, there can be nothing "added", by definition. Race to the bottom is the only possible end result in your Fantasyland if companies truly desired differentiation and the only means to differentiate is on price. The truth is that if anybody can copy anybody, nobody would even try differentiation. It would be far easier to just keep the price the same as your competition, spend nothing on R&D, and just put money into marketing to trick people into thinking your product is different when it's really not. Yay, free market!
So, it's up to government to foster innovation, because us consumers simply just hate it?
It's up to government to prevent theft of inventions so that innovation can happen. Just like it's up to the police to prevent robberies so commerce can happen.
I would like to believe Apple is selling massive amounts of products because they innovate and because consumers value those innovations, rather then that they are backed by a government that fosters innovation.
I would like to believe Apple is selling massive amounts of products because they innovate and because consumers value those innovations rather than that they steal those innovations from another company and claim them as their own.