Or because the possibility of profits incentivized invention.
All three of these theories can be true
In which case the market is working as intended.
If all three are true then the market is 2/3 working as intended and 1/3 held back by patents that aren't being licensed out enough.
Alternatively, if all three are true, 1/3 are held back because of the lack of incentive to develop an invention.
Is someone saying otherwise here?
YahooTube’s comment is heavily implying that the market systems in-place stifled invention via patent restrictions.
Yes, but isn’t that working as intended?
As we can see by this thread… It’s heavily debated as to whether the intentions we should be following are those of long-dead forbears, or the will of the people, and in the latter, which people.
All three of these theories can be true
In which case the market is working as intended.
If all three are true then the market is 2/3 working as intended and 1/3 held back by patents that aren't being licensed out enough.
Alternatively, if all three are true, 1/3 are held back because of the lack of incentive to develop an invention.
Is someone saying otherwise here?
YahooTube’s comment is heavily implying that the market systems in-place stifled invention via patent restrictions.
Yes, but isn’t that working as intended?
As we can see by this thread… It’s heavily debated as to whether the intentions we should be following are those of long-dead forbears, or the will of the people, and in the latter, which people.