Comment on Palworld confirms ‘disappointing’ game changes forced by Pokémon lawsuit

• HalfSalesman@lemm.ee ⁨23⁩ ⁨hours⁩ ago

  that doesn’t mean the idea doesn’t have merit.

  As an incentive structure for corporations and “people” purely motivated by avarice, sure.

  Most people naturally want to create and contribute as long as their needs and most basic wants are met. A monopoly as an incentive is not necessary.

  Without that protection, companies would be less likely to invest in R&D.

  There are many ways to motivate corporations to do R&D outside of offering them a monopoly on a silver platter. Incentives are only one half of the equation. Its really all about leverage.

  source

  • sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works ⁨21⁩ ⁨hours⁩ ago

    There are many ways to motivate corporations to do R&D outside of offering them a monopoly on a silver platter

    The main alternative is offering them a subsidy on a silver platter, but then you’re making everyone pay for that R&D, not just the customers who want whatever that product is, and there’s no protection against IP theft unless the government owns and enforces the patents or something abroad.

    I personally prefer the IP law approach, but I think it needs significant reforms, both in duration and the approval process.

    source

    • HalfSalesman@lemm.ee ⁨21⁩ ⁨hours⁩ ago

      With a monopoly, you may very well be making everyone pay for the increased price gouge that comes with monopolies. Not just the customer of that particular product. It depends on the nature of the product.

      If it is a component of a more common device or product, basically everyone ends up paying more (HDMI comes to mind). If its an innovation relating to a basic need and gets integrated with the majority of services, basically everyone ends up paying more. If its something that has external implications on the market or wider world that creates inefficiencies, then people functionally make less money because effect people pay more and thus long term this harms spending on a variety of products. If people can’t afford the price gouge and continue using less effective products (assuming they are even available) they likely long term spend more money to make up for the inefficiencies from that.

      Monopolies damage things beyond the product that gets monopolized and merely concentrates wealth.

      Regardless a subsidy is not the only alternative. That’s still thinking in terms of carrot, and you are forgetting the stick. You can also legislate mandatory R&D in budgets for large corporations based on revenue/profits just as much as you with the punishment of potentially being fined/taxed more.

      But outside of that, there is also government contracts. That is, a single payer, (monopsony) generally can get fantastic results out of competing firms. Its largely a major reason why the American Military has historically benefited from such significant technological advancements for nearly a century now.

      source

      • sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works ⁨16⁩ ⁨hours⁩ ago

        Not all monopolies are created equal. We’re talking about IP protections, not general monopolies, meaning these are new products, not some existing necessity. IP law on its own can’t kill existing products.

        An author having exclusive rights to a work doesn’t prevent other authors from making their own works. A pharmaceutical company having exclusive rights to a medication doesn’t prevent other pharmaceutical companies from making competing medications. Likewise for video games and whatnot.

        The problems with Palworld have little to do with IP law as a concept but with how broad the protection of patents is. IMO, video game mechanics shouldn’t be patentable, and companies should be limited to copyright protections for their IP. But IP protection is still important as a concept so creators don’t get screwed and customers don’t get defrauded.

        You can also legislate mandatory R&D in budgets for large corporations

        Yeah, that’s not going to be abused/scare away companies.

        Its largely a major reason why the American Military has historically benefited from such significant technological advancements for nearly a century now.

        It’s also why the US pays an obscene amount for its military. Defense contractors absolutely fleece the government because they are generally not allowed to contract with other governments, so they expect a higher profit from their one contracted buyer.

        source