Anthony counters:
What if you slaved away perfecting your chili recipe for 12 months, expending time and money buying equipment, traveling to chili restaurants to get feedback from potential customers as you tried over 500 iterations before you reached perfection? So it wasn't really "something for nothing" right? Doesn't John's Wan Chai Chili Shack deserve some protection from "Anthony's Hong Kong Chili" with 25 locations who shamelessly took your Chili, ran it through a gas chromatograph and discovered your secret 10 spice, eel and snake meat recipe? It cost you 1 year and $10,000, Anthony spent $100 and waited 2 days for the result. Why should you go through all the work knowing Anthony has the money to figure out your chili innovations and use them take your customers?
My reply...
What if you slaved away perfecting your chili recipe for 12 months, expending time and money buying equipment, traveling to chili restaurants to get feedback from potential customers as you tried over 500 iterations before you reached perfection?
1. Why would John's personal choices oblige others to limit theirs? Why does that oblige fifth parties to pay fourth parties to move on third parties who prefer to buy from second parties raher than John's Wan Chai Chili? If I worked a billion years and people preferred Anthony's Discount Hong Kong Chili, then those who buy from Anthony never were nor never will be my customers. Why, after all my work, do people prefer Anthony's?
So it wasn't really "something for nothing" right?
2. No one can judge what psychic satisfaction John got from all that work. But it surely does not warrant blocking all others from making chili, even John's chili. If people want to make money they must work, like the rest of us. Buy ingredients, cook them, market them and sell them.
Doesn't John's Wan Chai Chili Shack deserve some protection from "Anthony's Hong Kong Chili" with 25 locations who shamelessly took your Chili, ran it through a gas chromatograph and discovered your secret 10 spice, eel and snake meat recipe?
3. So customers must be forbidden to spend their money where they prefer?
It cost you 1 year and $10,000, Anthony spent $100 and waited 2 days for the result.
4. Almost all benefits of invention and innovation in the history of mankind have been from people who never demanded exclusivity. Almost all innovation is altruistic in that sense. Why change a good thing now? Anthony must buy the beans, spices, cook, market and sell the chili with all of the risks the real world can present, plus hope others prefer him to John, or at least serve customers John cannot reach or customers who will under no circumstances buy from John (because he is anti-IPR or whateer reason.)
Why should you go through all the work knowing Anthony has the money to figure out your chili innovations and use them take your customers?
5. Because I want if for myself. I have a passion for the perfect chili. And when I have it, I'll sell as much as I can handle with the resources I have, to anyone who freely wants to buy from me. I ought not ruin my life just because Anthony is blessed with the means to reach more people with my chili recipe. Yes, I must be content with what possibilities I have, and that a free market bring more better cheaper faster.
The alternative is where fifth parties pay fourth parties to move on third parties who prefer to buy from second parties than John's Wan Chai Chili. The whole violence based system brings innovation to a screeching halt, just so John does not have to work for a living.
And you note your entire scenario is a straw man argument, because the problem you outline is not one based in IPR. The reality is patents are almost always today some quick idea hurried into the system to game the system. Trademarks are delusional vanity plates and copyright does not apply to recipes. In fact, as to food, no IPR applies (except in the odious practice of patenting frankenfoods.)
There is no rational nor moral basis for intellectual property rights, but we live under such a regime. What can you do? For my part, anyone can and people do steal my ideas and work and all sorts of things. I am obliged, to be nonviolent, to be content with what I can scare up, and let others run their risks. If I want to earn, I have to make things and sell them, or contract with people for my services, which I provide. Anything more requires violence to make it work.
Like those who went on Amazon to undercut me. I discovered by their efforts a new market and price point for my book. I then crushed them. On Amazon.com. And I took their income stream away.
Nonviolently.
Feel free to forward this by email to three of your friends.
What if you slaved away perfecting your chili recipe for 12 months, expending time and money buying equipment, traveling to chili restaurants to get feedback from potential customers as you tried over 500 iterations before you reached perfection? So it wasn't really "something for nothing" right? Doesn't John's Wan Chai Chili Shack deserve some protection from "Anthony's Hong Kong Chili" with 25 locations who shamelessly took your Chili, ran it through a gas chromatograph and discovered your secret 10 spice, eel and snake meat recipe? It cost you 1 year and $10,000, Anthony spent $100 and waited 2 days for the result. Why should you go through all the work knowing Anthony has the money to figure out your chili innovations and use them take your customers?
My reply...
What if you slaved away perfecting your chili recipe for 12 months, expending time and money buying equipment, traveling to chili restaurants to get feedback from potential customers as you tried over 500 iterations before you reached perfection?
1. Why would John's personal choices oblige others to limit theirs? Why does that oblige fifth parties to pay fourth parties to move on third parties who prefer to buy from second parties raher than John's Wan Chai Chili? If I worked a billion years and people preferred Anthony's Discount Hong Kong Chili, then those who buy from Anthony never were nor never will be my customers. Why, after all my work, do people prefer Anthony's?
So it wasn't really "something for nothing" right?
2. No one can judge what psychic satisfaction John got from all that work. But it surely does not warrant blocking all others from making chili, even John's chili. If people want to make money they must work, like the rest of us. Buy ingredients, cook them, market them and sell them.
Doesn't John's Wan Chai Chili Shack deserve some protection from "Anthony's Hong Kong Chili" with 25 locations who shamelessly took your Chili, ran it through a gas chromatograph and discovered your secret 10 spice, eel and snake meat recipe?
3. So customers must be forbidden to spend their money where they prefer?
It cost you 1 year and $10,000, Anthony spent $100 and waited 2 days for the result.
4. Almost all benefits of invention and innovation in the history of mankind have been from people who never demanded exclusivity. Almost all innovation is altruistic in that sense. Why change a good thing now? Anthony must buy the beans, spices, cook, market and sell the chili with all of the risks the real world can present, plus hope others prefer him to John, or at least serve customers John cannot reach or customers who will under no circumstances buy from John (because he is anti-IPR or whateer reason.)
Why should you go through all the work knowing Anthony has the money to figure out your chili innovations and use them take your customers?
5. Because I want if for myself. I have a passion for the perfect chili. And when I have it, I'll sell as much as I can handle with the resources I have, to anyone who freely wants to buy from me. I ought not ruin my life just because Anthony is blessed with the means to reach more people with my chili recipe. Yes, I must be content with what possibilities I have, and that a free market bring more better cheaper faster.
The alternative is where fifth parties pay fourth parties to move on third parties who prefer to buy from second parties than John's Wan Chai Chili. The whole violence based system brings innovation to a screeching halt, just so John does not have to work for a living.
And you note your entire scenario is a straw man argument, because the problem you outline is not one based in IPR. The reality is patents are almost always today some quick idea hurried into the system to game the system. Trademarks are delusional vanity plates and copyright does not apply to recipes. In fact, as to food, no IPR applies (except in the odious practice of patenting frankenfoods.)
There is no rational nor moral basis for intellectual property rights, but we live under such a regime. What can you do? For my part, anyone can and people do steal my ideas and work and all sorts of things. I am obliged, to be nonviolent, to be content with what I can scare up, and let others run their risks. If I want to earn, I have to make things and sell them, or contract with people for my services, which I provide. Anything more requires violence to make it work.
Like those who went on Amazon to undercut me. I discovered by their efforts a new market and price point for my book. I then crushed them. On Amazon.com. And I took their income stream away.
Nonviolently.
Feel free to forward this by email to three of your friends.
0 comments:
Post a Comment