I am strongly convinced that the possession of ideas and creations of the intellect is not possible. In my opinion, only physical things can be possessed, that is, things that are limited, that is, that can only be in one place. The power or the freedom to do with the object what one wants corresponds to the concept of possession. This does not mean, however, that one must expose everything openly. It is ultimately the difference between proprietary solutions, where the “construction manual” is kept to oneself, and the open source philosophy, where this source is accessible to everyone.

As the title says, I would oppose this thesis to your arguments and hope that together we can rethink and improve our positions. Please keep in mind that this can be an enrichment for all, so we discuss with each other and not against each other ;)

  • mr_pink@lemmy.dbzer0.comEnglish
    1·
    1 year ago

    It’s quite simple, if you come up with something popular, there are corporations that would happily copy it to get the money for themselves and you’re left with nothing,

    You could copy the product but you don’t know how is built so you will end up with an identical but more expensive product. The is a youtuber that made a chicken sandwich from scratch and end up costing 1500$ and 6 months. Efficiency it’s important for businesses.

    The company that creates the product also has another advantage and that is to be the first to enter the market, so they are not going to be left with nothing.

    In that scenario the biggest advances will be in production efficiency, because even if your competitors can copy you they will not be able to sell cheaper than you.

    And if people feel like their idea can’t make them money because someone richer will steal it, they’ll stop having ideas.

    Someone could make your first idea more efficient, but that’s good for your second idea because it proves you’re good and more people will be willing to work with you.