Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Technology Stocks : Advanced Micro Devices - Moderated (AMD) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: bacchus_ii who wrote (43848)	6/11/2001 4:41:05 PM
From: Road Walker	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 275872

Gottfried, re: Maybe many level of market share could trigger different rule, like at 33% some basic rule apply, then at 50% more important rules, then 75% full blast regulation should apply. The whole thing could be trigger only for very big market, maybe only starting when the market is for 1 billions $/year or more.The problem is not IP, it's the standard... When a standard as been established, no matter how or by whom, it should became candidate to expropriation in the public interest. Would drug companies continue the same level of, say, cancer research? When you decrease the incentive for new product development, doesn't that decrease the investment and risk that individuals and companies are willing to wager? Doesn't that stifle innovation rather than promote innovation? John

To: bacchus_ii who wrote (43848)	6/11/2001 8:49:22 PM
From: dale_laroy	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 275872

>It should be possible to expropriate (against reasonable price) any IP when public interest is at stake, the same way they can expropriate your house to run a freeway.< I agree with this. My father spent $2300 to clear some land for crops, only to have the state grab it for $2200 the very next year. Grabbing IP in a similar manner would not be any less fair. Indeed, I have advocated that the government control certain publications that they deem to not be desireable by publishing it in competition with the originators. For example if the government would undermine the profitability of pornography by publishing copies of it at bargain basement prices to compete against the originators they could undermine its profitability without violating any free speech guarantees. Of course, the owners who's property is claimed by the government would not necessarily lose in the deal. In the case of my father, the land was claimed to provide an area for waterfowl blinds, which were granted by the state in a lottery. The losers of the lottery approached my father and some of them leased my father's corn field after the corn was harvested, initially for $300 for the season, growing to over $1500 for the season over time. This was far more than my father could have ever made from farming the land the state took. Similarly, the government distributing low priced or free copies of certain IP could end up indirectly benefiting the companies in unforeseen ways.

To: bacchus_ii who wrote (43848)	6/13/2001 9:54:08 PM
From: Joe NYC	Respond to of 275872

Gottfried, It should be possible to expropriate (against reasonable price) any IP when public interest is at stake, the same way they can expropriate your house to run a freeway. The problem is not IP, it's the standard. When a standard as been established, no matter how or by whom, it should became candidate to expropriation in the public interest. I don't necessarily see any public interest in expropriation of Windows OS, or Office suite. Actually, I don't really like the term expropriation. I think when a private property is needed to be acquired by a government entity, it should be at prices agreeable to the seller (with possibility of impartial arbitrator). Joe