Consume Product

That's what they want you to think, in reality it applies to consoomer products mostly, i.e pajeetsoft Windows desktop OS, crapple mobile OS, Sony/Xbox console OS and so on.

Most servers runs GNU+Linux (open source), IoT devices use GNU+Linux and so on. A lot of commercial use is hybrid projects were 95% of the code is open source, then the devs added 5% proprietary code on top of it.

This here is the real issue, if you build on top of an open source project, any changes you do should be required to be open source too. In case of phones, desktop PC's, consoles and IoT devices, the software isn't the biggest issue, there's a lot of work on the hardware too, distribution, manufacturing, special use cases and so on.

As long as we ban Chyna (and similar countries) companies should have no issues competing on a fair and open market even were intellectual property doesn't exist.

It's not harder than banning all products that doesn't comply with your country's laws. I.e if local companies can't use slave labor, then we shouldn't allow Chyna to export stuff made by slave labor and sell on our markets, simple as that. Same rules for everyone.

Im guessing he means open source in that the code is viewable, not that you have license to use it in commercial ventures.

Do you know WHY the software industry runs on IP?

BILL GATES

Up until then, software was written and shared freely. The idea of making money off of code was ridiculous. People wanted to sell computers and solutions, not code. Customers wanted stuff that just did what you told it to do, not code.

Today there are still people trying to figure a way to circumvent the GPL and other open-source licenses. It's utterly ridiculous. Software is literally super easy to make and distribute, almost zero cost. Nothing in the world is like it, and yet it is so expensive, why?

Software engineers are just glorified mechanics after all. It doesn't take a genius to figure out how stuff works or how to fix it when it doesn't work anymore.

The age of copyright is rapidly coming to a close. It was never a moral necessity.

Originally, the copyright was a way for authors to get paid for their work. See, anyone could take a book and typeset and publish it, and sell copies for the price of ink and paper. Even the labor was negligible once you got it typeset. 100 copies, 10,000 copies, didn't matter, was just a matter of time.

So if an author wanted to get compensated, they had to ask the government to stop other printing presses from publishing the work. The one publishing house would charge a little extra and forward the extra to the author, and everyone was happy.

This was a modern concept. Up until then, authors, artists, etc, NEVER got paid for copying their work. If you wanted to feed your family while producing works of art, you either had to be rich yourself or have a rich guy become your patron. THIS system made way more sense because it created a sort of "tenure" where the artist was truly free to express their art and have full control over that expression, versus copyright where the author had to think about how many copies he was going to sell and target the audience or whatever.

We should definitely abolish copyright law. If you want someone to create something, pay them upfront. If you want them to be free to "express themselves" then buy them food and lodging and clothing. That's all that's required to have a functioning society where the people own what is popular, and artists are free to express themselves to the maximum extent possible.

As for trademarks, patents, etc... there is a case to be made for trademarks within reason, but patents are also nonsense. The idea was that by incentivizing people to share their ideas, we would get a lot more sharing of ideas. Today, the system is completely inverted. If I work for a major corporation, the policy is always "DO NOT EVER LOOK AT PATENTS". Only lawyers look at those, and the only time they ever talk about them with inventors is when it is time to create a patent to milk an invention for all it's worth.

With patents, just have people share stuff as they want to. If they want to keep it a secret, that's fine, but society should respond by not sharing with such people, or shaming them. My idea is that we create an intellectual university where people who are "in" can freely access the information on the condition they freely share their own ideas, but those who are "out" get NOTHING. I don't know a way to force someone to share their ideas, so there is no effective means of enforcement except the honor system.

If you don’t own or patent a certain idea or mechanism, what is there to stop a pajeet of jumping in at the final stage of R&D to steal your designs and manufacture it for a 1/10th of the cost?

Its a pretty jewed ideology in practice, thats for sure. In the history of Christian Europe, while credit was generally given to those who made discoveries, the concept of being able to *hoard* your discovery was considered deeply immoral and I dont think every really occured.

closed source software is like judiasm, it enslaves the goyim

Im guessing he means open source in that the code is viewable, not that you have a license to use it in commercial ventures.

> You'll die of starvation trying to make a living writing it

You're not supposed to make a living with it. Much like art, you are supposed to perform some other gainful employment, and work on the project for fun, in your spare time.

Trying to turn 'art' into a profession is similarly disastrous.

Except you don't have to reinvent the wheel and make huge investments to create something. Your work is a piss in the ocean running on GNU+Linux or some other open source OS with open source frameworks. You're not going broke as thousands of other developers have also contributed to the same code base.

The only difference is that you might need a job flipping burgers at McDonalds to pay your bills, while you work on your open source project a few hours on your spare time if you work on a small project that doesn't generate any money.

Which you would have to do with proprietary code as well, when you after a 40 hour work week in the office, among pajeets, doesn't earn enough money to make a living as the pajeets work for 10% of a normal developers wage. So unless you wanna share a 1 bedroom apartment with 20 pajeets, you'll have to take that second job at McDonalds anyway.

Funny, I made millions working with open source software. I was often paid to WRITE open source software.

Communism had no part with it.

It turns out that having everyone collaborate on the Linux kernel made the Linux kernel the best kernel that has ever existed. Who knew?

The point of open source isnt making money, its for people to help build software as a hobby.