Quote:
|
Originally Posted by M. Krass
If Chrysler figures out how to make an efficient, affordable hydrogen-powered vehicle, they can choose to keep that technology to themselves and charge consumers a premium for it or they can make that technology available to all manufacturers.
One choice let's their shareholders buy a nice new house and a big screen TV. The other keeps our planet inhabitable for another 1000 years.
|
or they can license the technology to other car manufactures for a reasonable fee, use the money to continue funding their (excellent) R&D department, enjoy the fruits of their labor, and still save the world.
competition and cooperating are both important, and there is a balance between them. Our patent laws give reseach companies protected competition rights for a limited period of time, then their inventions become public domain.
Xerox is a good example. The competition for a good document copy system drove the companys founder to invest his own time and money to invent xerography. Xerox enjoyed a monopoly under their patent, and created a new product line under the protection they had.
When the patent expired (forced cooperation) the competition flooded in like a tidal wave, which drove the prices way down, and forced Xerox to become far more innovative than they had been.
It works both ways. If you take away the competiton we will loose incentive to try new things. If you take away the cooperation then the state of the art of science and technology will become stagnent, because companys will keep the results of their research as trade secrets instead of applying for patents.
Same with FIRST - we need both, the competition and the cooperation.