- jean_tta parentFrom the perspective of the gene it makes sense - genes that are more sucesful at making offspring (aka getting copied) should be expected to prosper through natural selection.
- You do here:
"Take any revolutionary discovery. Compare making it freely available to anyone, or limiting the availability to those holding the patents. [...]"
You take the situation where there _is_ a revolutionary discovery, with or without patents, and then wonder about the effect of patents on the next innovations. In doing that you do not consider that may be a revolutionary discovery with patents, and none without.
- You make two assumptions:
- There are as many revolutionary discoveries with and without patents
- Without patents, discoveries would be freely avalaible
As far as I know, two (related) arguments are generally made for patents:
- Patents create an indirect (by preventing the competition from using your invention) or direct (by licensing it) monetary return to innovation, potentially leading to more innovation
- If a company wants competitors not to copy their innovation, they can 1. keep it secret or 2. disclose it and patent it; without patent the choice is between 1. keep it secret or 2. disclose it and have everybody copy them. In this case, patents lead to more innovation being made freely avalaible (with a delay!).
Whether patents lead to more or less innovation is, as far as I know, contentious.
- "Électricité de France S.A. (literally Electricity of France), commonly known as EDF, is a French multinational electric utility company, largely owned by the French state." - from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C3%89lectricit%C3%A9_de_Franc...
- A very smart man, PG himself, once said [0]: > I actually worry a lot that as I get "popular" I'll be able to get away with saying stupider stuff than I would have dared say before.
PG started writing essays about what he knows well (programming, start ups), then about things he knows a bit (painting) and then stuff like this, or his essays on economic policy. In any case, he predicted his own future quite well.
[0] quoted here https://idlewords.com/2005/04/dabblers_and_blowhards.htm from there http://lemonodor.com/archives/001091.html#c8508
- 1 point
- > andard to be a high ranking politicians like presidents, ministers, or CEOs. In the 20 years before 2017, they used not only have studied at the same school, the ENA, but where mostly from the same prom : 1978-1980, the (in)famous Promotion Voltaire.
For context, the ÉNA was a civil service school, i.e. it was for French civil service what West point is for the US Army.
- Is it fair to compare the very small region that is England to the very large region that is India?
A fairer comparison would be Europe vs India at the time, or England vs the most advanced region of India at the time.
"The most advanced region of Europe" vs "the average region of India" is nitpicking.
- This is essentially the philosophical zombie thought experiment: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical_zombie
- This is what is new:
> A trove of internal Amazon documents reveals how the e-commerce giant ran a systematic campaign of creating knockoff goods and manipulating search results to boost its own product lines in India - practices it has denied engaging in. And at least two top Amazon executives reviewed the strategy.
As far as I understand, those documents were not known before.
- Every country has its own myths to both give legitimacy to the government and unify the people around a national project. Sure, the US is more extreme in its focus on its foundation as the core of its national myth, but is it so different from the French left rhetoric about the CNR program or the French right name dropping the founder of the (latest) republic left and right?
- Below is a quote from the press release we are discussing:
> In the 1960s, he led the development of physical models of the Earth’s climate and was the first person to explore the interaction between radiation balance and the vertical transport of air masses. His work laid the foundation for the development of current climate models.
As far as I understand (I am not a physicist), you're right: climate is not new, and climate models have been getting better for decades. And that's (in part) because of this guy's work, half a century ago. It sure pushed the boundaries of physics at the time, didn't it?
- See here: https://au.ambafrance.org/IMG/pdf/en_indopacifique_web_cle0f...
The French government has openly stated that this goes beyond the canceled contract per se.