Patents or Letters Patent were devised to allow inventors to disclose
their invention for the benefit of all but to have a period (20 years)
in which to get income on a reasonable basis during the life of the patent.
Inventors would often keep their methods a closely-held secret which may
have died with them, the other alternative was an early form of
industrial espionage as rivals attempted to find out the secret.
Patents allow everybody to benefit, the inventor in the short term, the
public in the short and long term – and also because of the publishing
of the patent in such a way that the method and invention could be
replicated allowed other inventors the scope to improve the invention
from an earlier stage.
The inventor did not have to patent an invention, it could be kept a
secret – but there was always the risk that somebody else would
independently discover the idea – then the original inventor had no
protection.
So – not necessarily greed, more a balance of high income for an
uncertain time versus lower income with better protection.
Russ Wood
*From:* opendtv-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:opendtv-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] *On Behalf Of *John Willkie
*Sent:* 04 April 2008 17:58
*To:* opendtv@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
*Subject:* [opendtv] Re: Definition of Greed
Apparently, Dan’s emails are getting filtered by the OpenDTV server. It
might be due to his graphical signature.
Here’s the final posting on this topic, which means I’ll give him the
last word.
John
------------------------------------------------------------------------
*De:* dan.grimes@xxxxxxxx [mailto:dan.grimes@xxxxxxxx]
*Enviado el:* Friday, April 04, 2008 8:51 AM
*Para:* John Willkie; craig@xxxxxxxxx; johnwillkie@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
*Asunto:* Fw: [opendtv] Re: Definition of Greed
It looks like my emails are getting filtered out so I am sending this
response directly to you two.
Dan
----- Forwarded by Dan Grimes/UNLV on 04/04/2008 08:49 AM -----
*Dan Grimes/UNLV*
04/03/2008 09:36 AM
To
opendtv@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
cc
Subject
[opendtv] Re: Definition of Greed
John Willkie: The desire for wealth isn't a major driver in innovation?
Dan Grimes: It can be. But I know a lot of scientists and developers
and none of them are in it for money. In fact, they cost money.
Likewise, most engineers and designers do not get the ultimate
financial reward for their work, only the salary. They either work for
someone or sell their patent to someone and that usually is not for an
excessive amount. So I am speaking at the personal level and not the
corporate institution. Yes, I would agree that the corporate (business)
drive is to use innovation to make money. But on the personal level,
the people doing the innovating, usually work for the challenge of it.
John: And, having savings isn't 'exceeding' one's costs?
Dan: No, savings is not exceeding one's costs. It is preparing for them.
John: Isn't an "inventor" one who possesses or seeks to posses a
patent? Isn't that a deed that permits one to extract "monopoly rents?"
Dan: No, an inventor is not defined as someone who seeks a patent, but
an inventor may seek a patent and often does. If we had no patent
system, the person inventing would still be an inventor. And receiving
money, "monopoly rents" if wish to call it, in itself is not an attitude
nor is acquiring and possessing a patent. However, greed is an attitude
of having an "excessive and rapacious desire."
John: However, I am not completely opposed to the writings of Ayn Rand.
She laid it bare.
Dan: Sorry, haven't read her work. Any works you recommend that I
might come to understand her point of view?
John: The context was that "GM is greedy" and engages in a "conflict
of" (an unstated) "interest." by having an open interest in XM.
Dan: I don't disagree that GM is greedy. And I can't speak to whether
GM's interest in XM is based on greed or not. Someone who knows the
people who run GM may be able to determine that. Certainly, GM's
actions point to greedy people running it. But I don't think a
corporation can be greedy. Greed is a personal attitude. A corporation
can look greedy but it is really those that drive the corporation that
are greedy. Greed can only come from a being, one that has intent.
John: Since savings or retirement, or loose change, exceeds one's
needs, it is "excessive."
Dan: As stated before, saving, a wise, good and honorable intent in my
opinion, is preparing for future costs and we know that we will have
future costs, especially in a capitalist economy. However, as I brought
up before, greed is an attitude and based on intent. Is the person's
intent to acquire wealth beyond their needs or to prepare for future
costs? (This is impossible for us to judge except when clearly over the
top.)
John: I am opposed to "from each according to his abilities (or lack of
same) and to each according to his needs."
Dan: Then you are opposed to charity as the Holy Bible proposes it, or
at least Paul's portion of it? As I am sure you are well aware of, this
is a quote from the Apostle Paul that says we should give to others in
need but not more than we are able (thus unwisely). It also means that
charity should, at minimum, corporately given, meet the basic needs.
To continue the discussion, and I welcome it through direct email, I
would need to know what philosophy you are coming from in order to
support or counter your basis for greed. But I would bet you follow a
pragmatic and possibly atheistic philosophy. If so, I can see how you
might believe that an attitude or intent would not be judged as right or
wrong, only whether it works or doesn't. But again, I would need to
know what your intent is.
John: I am in favor of free markets and free people. It tends to limit
the excesses.
Dan: Clearly we have developed an economy and government that is based
on liberty and who we are as human beings (endowed by our Creator, I
might add, for which I truly believe is necessary for those rights to be
of any value). I, too, favor free markets and free people. But with
freedom comes responsibility. I would say that having an economy based
on capitalism and a government based on representation demands that we
corporately (as a people, individuals working together within all
aspects of society including businesses) follow strict principals,
attitudes and intents. If we do not, we will cause the system to fail.
There has been much debate as to whether a free and
capitalistic/representative based society can succeed. Karl Marx wrote
brilliantly on this subject and hypothesized that capitalism cannot
work. We have shown that it can last, at least this long, but only
because we continue to cling to principals that keep us in check,
judging things right and wrong, and, in my opinion, following a higher
justice. Even the pragmatic would say we need to follow these
principals or all hell would break loose.
So if you can see my perspective on how right and wrong are required to
function in this society, you might see why I don't like using the word
'greed' as a common use for capitalism or savings.
I apologize and welcome reprimand if I am overstepping the topic of this
discussion board. I welcome direct communication if we would like to
continue on the subject.
Dan Grimes
_____
________________________________________________________________________
This e-mail has been scanned for viruses by MessageLabs.
________________________________________________________________________
This e-mail has been scanned for viruses by MessageLabs.
