Buy from NZ? I tried but come on...

[R-Soul]

Part of the answer is that the workers in the 3rd world economies shouldnt be exploited and should be paid a decent wage. Then the goods would be a true value rather than an artificially low one

But if they were paid a decent wage, they would not have the manufacturig job in teh first place. Vicious cycle. Global capitalism helps even out the worlds wealth imbalances. As a first world consumer, its your duty to the world to use the training your first world education has given you to ensure the first world stays ahead of the third world in temrs of intellectual capital, and buy the goods that get made in the third world countries.

A POINT TO CONSIDER: At the moment the economic models all assume growth - constant growth - to work. However, in the future, thats going to have to change, as constant growth means unsustainability for the world. I guess we are all going to have to face facts: The wealth of nations will even out (probably to a standard well below what we are all used to).

[Edbear]

Part of the answer is that the workers in the 3rd world economies shouldnt be exploited and should be paid a decent wage. Then the goods would be a true value rather than an artificially low one

Interesting on the news last night was the huge money the Chinese are investing in US companies. They are buying struggling businesses and rebuilding them. One owner said she used to employ 15 staff and was struggling to survive, now they employ 400 and are very busy! So it's working both ways, although, one does question the future of US businesses under Chinese ownership without the necessary governmental check and balances.

These Chinese businessmen are very astute and are cash-rich and obviously see an advantage in investing not only in their own economy but in Western economies as well.

[R-Soul]

Agreed.


While I can see that that can make money (look at Microsoft), I don't like it.

The trouble with treating knowledge as property, and artificially restricting its dissemination, is that overall we end up doing more work than is necessary. If only all the producers of knowledge shared it, as is common in science, we'd all be better off - and the transfer happens both ways, so all the producers can benefit from the work of others. Sure there are some who are mostly consumers, but it doesn't actually cost the producer any more if more people consume, so who cares?

Patents are particularly evil, because they leave the second inventor with nothing, despite the fact that they've done just as much work to get there.

[edit: Our so called 'intellectual property' laws are of course just another form of government protection, which I don't see as being any more necessary than any other. The free-marketeers should be campaigning against them.]

Richard
(thinking mostly about software, because that's the industry I'm in)

You proclaim the good of sharing information, and then call the patents system evil? You clearly have no idea how or what the patent system is for.

The entire thinking behind the patent system is that the inventor is required to give a FULL disclosure of the new technology they have invented. In return for the full disclosure, the government grants a monopoly for a certain timespan. This is so that researchers do not have to reinvente teh wheel, but can instead go to the patents database, and establish what the latest technology is. Its exact purpose is for sharing of information.

It also encourages inevestment in industry in the country, as investors would rather invest money in building an industry in a country where protection is avaialble, than where it is not.

Having said that, I am not sure that it always works as intended - as we can get the latest tech from the US patent databases, without hindering free markets locally. The NZ patent database is a very poor cousin (with some 200,000 patents) to the US (with some 7million patents, and all the latest tech). But if Us companies could not get protection here for their inventions, then they would not invest in businesses here.

In some ways the patent system helps rich companies stay rich (it costs a fortune to enforce patents), but also allows small players to get in on the act with new inventions (and allows them to license the patents to rich companies who can enforce the patents for them). But too often the small inventors need big players to take a cut to make their dreams reality. Not enough assistance is given to the small guys to enable them to go it alone. Then again, if its not viable, it should not be there...

[R-Soul]

a) because you need it for something else

b) because someone else needs it and is paying you

c) yes, possibly for fun

I work for a company that writes software. A significant chunk of it is free software that anyone can download and use - we write and improve it largely on contract to clients who need new features.

Richard

I would suggest that as a software company, you are either:

1) not coming up with anything new and inventive that is worthy of protection (which is what patents protect - they protect inventions), and are therefore not driving technology along, but are merely using the fruits of others previous good ideas in number crunching work.

OR
2) If you are indeed coming up with new and inventive subject matter, and allowing it to be copied for nothing, then you are destroying a large part of the value of your company. Especially as software can be copied easily and distributed widely with no distribution costs. It is perfectly suite for coming up with new ideas, implementing them in software, and selling them around the world instantaneously. Selling time spent making software seems like a bit of a poor idea (there are only som any hours in a day, and so many employees in a co). Of course, if your clients paid you to invent, then they should be entitled to keep it and sell it as they see fit.

OR
3) Your busness model does not reside in sale of software, but rather sale of time spent working (and then see 2) above again) or sale of advertsing on the software or websites made. Software has many business models that cannot always be copied by manufacturers of tangible goods.

The base model of open source does not imply that the software is free - it can still cost- but must just be sold on with the source code being made available. Allowing for its modification just means that it gets more widely distributed - in a way, being open source is a form of marketing. There is always an alternate way of thinking with an angle for making money. If it is free, then why on earth would a software firm (and I do not mean arty farty students with too much time on their hands) spend time and resources and money on developing something for nothing, so that their copmetitors can use it the next day without having to spend a dime on it?

[R-Soul]

I have a question

Would New Zealand be a better place if we still had significant local manufacturing
as opposed to most stuff coming in from overseas for example our Auto industry, clothing Manufacturing industries, shoes manufacturing and there are a host of other manufacturing plants shut down as they cant compete with low priced imports.

And I am talking bigger picture not bloody leathers

Thats a very vague and ambiguous question? Let me rephrase it:
1) Would NZ be better off with polluting, capital intensive, cost sensitive industries offering large numbers of low paying, tedious, menial jobs, so that people did not have to think hard about where their niche is, and what they can do to make themselves valuable? (And keepingi n mind that unemployment in NZ is pretty low anyway.)

OR How about:
2) Would NZ be better off having many large industries with large financial muscle that has clout with the government to act in their best interests (i.e. keep wages low) and spend taxpayes money on protecting their industries if they cannot perform efficiently enough?

[R-Soul]

It's a pity, but understandable in the current circumstances.

Would you and your competitors not all be better off if you agreed to share all your knowledge? Admittedly, racing is competition, so different rules may naturally apply around that.

Richard

And buisiness is not competition? The same law applies - the law of the jungle...

In fact racing is proabably less brutal, with less at stake!

[MarkH]

Part of the answer is that the workers in the 3rd world economies shouldnt be exploited and should be paid a decent wage. Then the goods would be a true value rather than an artificially low one

Who ever said they weren't paid a decent wage? There are plenty of places in the world where $2 per hour is a really good wage and easily enough to feed a family with. It seems to me that your solution is to take their jobs away and let them & their families starve to death.

[Quasievil]

Thats a very vague and ambiguous question? Let me rephrase it:
1) Would NZ be better off with polluting, capital intensive, cost sensitive industries offering large numbers of low paying, tedious, menial jobs, so that people did not have to think hard about where their niche is, and what they can do to make themselves valuable? (And keepingi n mind that unemployment in NZ is pretty low anyway.)

OR How about:
2) Would NZ be better off having many large industries with large financial muscle that has clout with the government to act in their best interests (i.e. keep wages low) and spend taxpayes money on protecting their industries if they cannot perform efficiently enough?

Those are very vague and ambiguous questions

[jasonu]

Interesting on the news last night was the huge money the Chinese are investing in US companies. They are buying struggling businesses and rebuilding them. One owner said she used to employ 15 staff and was struggling to survive, now they employ 400 and are very busy! So it's working both ways, although, one does question the future of US businesses under Chinese ownership without the necessary governmental check and balances.

These Chinese businessmen are very astute and are cash-rich and obviously see an advantage in investing not only in their own economy but in Western economies as well.

Shit I wish I worked for that company. Whatever news about the US economy you are being fed down there, THERE IS NO GOOD NEWS THAT IS TRUE. This place is seriously screwed and will remain so for a good few years yet.

[Edbear]

Shit I wish I worked for that company. Whatever news about the US economy you are being down there, THERE IS NO GOOD NEWS THAT IS TRUE. This place is seriously screwed and will remain so for a good few years yet.

Obviously it will take a lot of Chinese investing in a lot of US companies to make a difference given the $multi-trillion national debt! The world's economic face is changed forever and the world's economic powerhouses are no longer as they battle virtually insurmountable debt and shrinking markets.

Anyone who thinks things are going to get better soon are dreaming or desperate! There will be pockets of success, perhaps in the short term, but we can look forward to spiralling costs for basic supplies, I mean literally bread and butter and energy, and growing civil discontent. There may be some extremely radical solutions proposed to resolve things and expect more rioting in developed and 3rd world countries. Maybe this is the wrong thread, but it fits in that people everywhere are looking further afield for their needs, not being able to rely on local supply to be affordable for many things.

[rwh]

How would the clients feel if after paying you to write and improve the software, you then made it available free for public download?

In general, they know that's going to happen, and they're fine with that. In return, they know they're going to get other clients' improvements for free too - along with the whole package they didn't pay for in the first place.

They get a bunch of free software that does mostly what they want, plus a bunch of paid improvements that do exactly what they want, plus a bunch of free improvements that probably do something useful for them as well. Everybody wins.

Note that other companies are improving the software too; we get their improvements and they get ours.

Richard

[steve_t]

In general, they know that's going to happen, and they're fine with that. In return, they know they're going to get other clients' improvements for free too - along with the whole package they didn't pay for in the first place.

They get a bunch of free software that does mostly what they want, plus a bunch of paid improvements that do exactly what they want, plus a bunch of free improvements that probably do something useful for them as well. Everybody wins.

Note that other companies are improving the software too; we get their improvements and they get ours.

Richard

Sounds like you shouldn't be charging for your work

[Brian d marge]

In general, they know that's going to happen, and they're fine with that. In return, they know they're going to get other clients' improvements for free too - along with the whole package they didn't pay for in the first place.

They get a bunch of free software that does mostly what they want, plus a bunch of paid improvements that do exactly what they want, plus a bunch of free improvements that probably do something useful for them as well. Everybody wins.

Note that other companies are improving the software too; we get their improvements and they get ours.

Richard

Love open source !

The software I use is all open source , Red hat and opencfd do quite well out of giving the product away ;...... free

The trainings expensive though ( for Joe public) but it brings you up to speed real quick

Stephen

Who puts back what he receives

[rwh]

I would suggest that as a software company, you are either:

1) not coming up with anything new and inventive that is worthy of protection (which is what patents protect - they protect inventions), and are therefore not driving technology along, but are merely using the fruits of others previous good ideas in number crunching work.

My feeling is that genuine significant innovations are relatively rare. Most improvements are small and incremental, and not really worthy of a patent anyway. That doesn't stop greedy companies applying for patents on obvious stuff, and ignorant patent offices awarding them.

OR
2) If you are indeed coming up with new and inventive subject matter, and allowing it to be copied for nothing, then you are destroying a large part of the value of your company. Especially as software can be copied easily and distributed widely with no distribution costs. It is perfectly suite for coming up with new ideas, implementing them in software, and selling them around the world instantaneously. Selling time spent making software seems like a bit of a poor idea (there are only som any hours in a day, and so many employees in a co). Of course, if your clients paid you to invent, then they should be entitled to keep it and sell it as they see fit.

We may be destroying perceived value, yes. But given that we've picked our niche in open source, we'd be destroying that value by patenting things left right and centre. Most of our clients are not in the software development business, and have no interest in selling software. They know that there is a valuable tradeoff in releasing their improvements and gaining everybody elses.

OR
3) Your busness model does not reside in sale of software, but rather sale of time spent working (and then see 2) above again) or sale of advertsing on the software or websites made. Software has many business models that cannot always be copied by manufacturers of tangible goods.

That's probably the closest to what we do - sale of time spent working, both design and implementation (and to a lesser extent, sometimes hosting as well). Yes, software is different to tangible goods - it is really just a design, which gets turned into something useful when the computer runs it. That doesn't mean you can't distribute the designs for tangible goods in the same way.

The base model of open source does not imply that the software is free - it can still cost- but must just be sold on with the source code being made available.

Not just with source code and modifiable, but freely copyable and distributable as well. Yes it's fine to sell CDs with open source sofware on them, or charge for downloads - but most people won't bother to get it that way, unless they need a CD's worth and only have dialup internet - or they want to make a financial contribution.

Allowing for its modification just means that it gets more widely distributed -

And more widely used, in ways the originator possibly didn't think of

in a way, being open source is a form of marketing.

Perhaps - though many people who get our modifications won't have heard of us (we return them 'upstream' to be downloaded by others) - but yes, the more the software is distributed, the more people there are wanting fixes and upgrades - and the better it gets - and the more people get employed, in various ways, to look after it.

There is always an alternate way of thinking with an angle for making money.

That's the most significant point, I think.

If it is free, then why on earth would a software firm (and I do not mean arty farty students with too much time on their hands) spend time and resources and money on developing something for nothing, so that their copmetitors can use it the next day without having to spend a dime on it?

Because we and our clients can make use of it. The fact that our (and their) competitors can also make use of it is (in many cases) neither here nor there.

Having said that, some of our clients do get improvements which aren't merged in, but they're usually very specific to their business (integration with other software systems they run, for example).

One of the downsides of having their own private code, of course, is that fewer people are looking at it, finding and often fixing bugs - and making further improvements on it.

Richard

[rwh]

Sounds like you shouldn't be charging for your work

Why on earth not?

Our clients want something done, and are prepared to pay for it.

We can do it, and charge a reasonable rate.

If we weren't charging, we wouldn't be doing it, and the client woudn't get it. Where's the sense in that?

Richard