I have mixed feelings on this, but I've been thinking a lot lately how much of the technologies available are based on ideas and research done by others.
For example, Larry Ellison created what is now known as Oracle by using the ideas of Edgar Codd's relational database (published in an ACM journal way back in 1970). Ellison is a multi-billionaire.
Similarly, Bill Gates was wise enough or had the foresight at least and business acumen to purchase a CP/M clone QDOS and the rest is, as they say, "history". Gates, too, is a billionaire.
At one time I thought it was a slimeball move--making money based on the ideas of others (when I was younger and idealistic).
Then I largely felt indifferent towards it; if the person didn't want it capitalized on, they should control access to it (i.e. if it's an idea or research, don't release it to the public but instead put it to use yourself).
And yet something inside just says it's "wrong". I don't know why I can't shake it.
At the same time, those who came up with the ideas and research "stood on shoulders of giants" and have themselves benefited (in an academic sense) from the work of others. They were not an island unto themselves in the development of the idea or research.
Just because you profit on an idea does not mean you didn't put in any work, either. For example, you still have to implement it and bring it to the market, provide the funding, and do all of that crap--you risk a lot of your own in the process.
Is there some safe middle ground? Split some of the profits with the inventor for a clear conscience, or at least acknowledge their contribution to it?
For example, Larry Ellison created what is now known as Oracle by using the ideas of Edgar Codd's relational database (published in an ACM journal way back in 1970). Ellison is a multi-billionaire.
Similarly, Bill Gates was wise enough or had the foresight at least and business acumen to purchase a CP/M clone QDOS and the rest is, as they say, "history". Gates, too, is a billionaire.
At one time I thought it was a slimeball move--making money based on the ideas of others (when I was younger and idealistic).
Then I largely felt indifferent towards it; if the person didn't want it capitalized on, they should control access to it (i.e. if it's an idea or research, don't release it to the public but instead put it to use yourself).
And yet something inside just says it's "wrong". I don't know why I can't shake it.
At the same time, those who came up with the ideas and research "stood on shoulders of giants" and have themselves benefited (in an academic sense) from the work of others. They were not an island unto themselves in the development of the idea or research.
Just because you profit on an idea does not mean you didn't put in any work, either. For example, you still have to implement it and bring it to the market, provide the funding, and do all of that crap--you risk a lot of your own in the process.
Is there some safe middle ground? Split some of the profits with the inventor for a clear conscience, or at least acknowledge their contribution to it?
Facebook
Twitter