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

• SinAdjetivos@lemmy.world ⁨5⁩ ⁨hours⁩ ago

  The main alternative is offering them a subsidy on a silver platter, but then you’re making everyone pay for that R&D

  R&D for many companies is taking the research done by underpaid graduate and PhD students and using that to create some sort of product or buying out the startups those students created and building from that.

  We already love in a system where the majority of costs are publicly subsidized (and that’s not mentioning the myriad of direct subsidies these companies receive, for an especially egregious example look at the amount Pfizer got paid to develop the Covid vaccine) and then the result is patented and privatized.

  source

  • sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works ⁨2⁩ ⁨hours⁩ ago

    underpaid graduate and PhD students

    They usually get grants, and frequently the student will get hired to follow up on that research. A lot of the research ends up unusable to the company as well, at least on its own.

    majority of costs are publicly subsidized

    I think that’s a bit extreme, but I’ll give you that a lot of R&D is subsidized. The COVID example, however, is an outlier, since the funding was to accelerate ending the pandemic, which was critical for the economy as a whole.

    source

    • SinAdjetivos@lemmy.world ⁨48⁩ ⁨minutes⁩ ago

      the student will get hired to follow up on that research.

      You’re right that that’s an aspect I forgot about, however If the patent system worked as you envision it then those students would own the parent which they would then lease to those companies. The actual situation is quite legally messy because it’s usually the universities which own the IP produced, (which is then leased out via partnerships, grants etc ) and when those individuals lease themselves with the promise of producing more valuable IP they have to take cautions to not infringe on their previous work.

      I think that’s a bit extreme,

      Not really, using Covid as an example this paper details the pre and post-epidemic funding sources that went into the discovery, testing and production of the COVID vaccine. Do you have any other examples you’d like to use to demonstrate how it’s “extreme”?

      The COVID example, however, is an outlier

      Yes and no, but it is well publicized and documented which is what I was trying to communicate with that specific one as an example.

      source
• HalfSalesman@lemm.ee ⁨1⁩ ⁨day⁩ 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 ⁨1⁩ ⁨day⁩ 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