Leading with abstract discussion regarding technology as a solution, only it’s too hard to enforce royalty rights (people just keep doing whatever works for them regardless of who had a good idea first.)
Next, classifying solutions to technology problems which use technology (coal burning for instance) as being a superior alternative to “social solutions” which never quite work.
The article appears to subtly suggest it unfair for anyone not paying in royalties for technology based solutions to their problems.
The presentation appears to claim “social” solutions don’t work or are insufficient, and only technology innovators (and their intellectual property) solve real problems.
Looks like a think piece laying a conceptual framework for promoting intellectual property technology as universally superior to “social solutions” whatever they make that out to be.
This seems a bit odd.
Leading with abstract discussion regarding technology as a solution, only it’s too hard to enforce royalty rights (people just keep doing whatever works for them regardless of who had a good idea first.)
Next, classifying solutions to technology problems which use technology (coal burning for instance) as being a superior alternative to “social solutions” which never quite work.
The article appears to subtly suggest it unfair for anyone not paying in royalties for technology based solutions to their problems.
The presentation appears to claim “social” solutions don’t work or are insufficient, and only technology innovators (and their intellectual property) solve real problems.
Looks like a think piece laying a conceptual framework for promoting intellectual property technology as universally superior to “social solutions” whatever they make that out to be.
Have I missed something?