pull down to refresh
47 sats \ 2 replies \ @didiplaywell 8 Aug \ on: Trump Demands That Intel CEO Resign Politics_And_Law
This is wrong everywhere. The Cadence company acted fully under its property rights. What's actually wrong here are the tyrannical laws that made his actions "illegal": ECRA, IEEPA and EAR. All entrepreneurship killers. Brace yourselves in fear of certain doom every single time you hear the government discovered something new to call "strategic".
I don't understand the logic of the argument that this is wrong everywhere.
I can agree that the general landscape of IP protection is killing entrepreneurship, but it seems that this is due to the rivalry that industries operate in today. This is just reality.
How many IP issues are filed in the opposite direction? I've heard of few over the last 40 years? Correct me if I'm wrong, I'm not an expert on IP. Just seems that there's a huge imbalance in terms of deals that involve espionage, or IP appropriation through subsidiaries.
So, as well as IP issues, I guess we could call PRC's control of critical supply-chain industries, or their global mineral and data mining operations and as 'strategic' too.
I get the point that governmental role in private industry should be questioned. But in my view, unfortunately, it's necessary to look beyond the idealism of non-interference when adversarial state-owned and state-co-opted companies have unified goals and strategy.
I.e. Is there an easy answer?
reply
The company didn't violate its own IP, for it sold and shared on free-will terms its own IP. The only laws infringed are related to what the state determined on its own terms about what IP can or can not be shared from a completely private company. What's unrealistic is to pretend to force that, since the product is intended for mass production and consumption. If the defence system of the state has specific technology it developed upon request and pays to own uniquely, then there would have been specific and very clear contracts in place and thus an undeniable violation of IP rights of the state. That's an actual thing and could and can and is treated that way even within the private sector. Why would it have to be any different upon arbitrary government terms on stuff it do not owns nor understands, when there are already perfectly defined protocols to deal with that exact situation within the private sector? Further, the unrealistic idealism is on thinking the government can deal with this better with absolutely no understanding nor skin on any aspect on the matter. This is outright arbitrary and pointless expropriation, a one-way path towards socialism if allowed to progress further. This is wrong everywhere.
reply