It’s not completely true, but close enough to say that the internet basically runs on Linux. 
I recall reading somewhere that some 80% of all web servers are Apache, a Linux-based web server. Go figure.
Clayton -
What would happen to any industry without government granted monopolies?
Did Linux innovate internet servers?
This whole dialog has been one big fat fugly strawman. Linux servers don’t innovate anything. People do.
Why do you bother posting at all with this garbage?
This is very off point, but since we are on software…
Why are software and internet hackers more efficient at making programs than paid government software engineers?
Anyone can make and share a program for free, and they do, yet people can still make a similiar program and sell it. Some of the best software programs are free to download online. I never used it personally, but every software geek I come across is all about Linux and other free software programs.
I still would like an answer from an anti-IP proponent to my simple initial question below (slightly modified for context):
Z.
yes. people had culture even before they had economies with economic calculation and money. there were cave paintings on the wall no money down.
I agree that you and I are always free (IP laws notwithstanding) to be doodling on sheets of paper at our respective dining room tables, but since the market is hardly prepared to pay anything for that I don’t find it particularly relevant for this subject and question. How about anything that required ANY significant investment of capital, time, and/or labor into its creation, and for which the market is willing to PAY to see/experience/read? Would any of those exist?
Z.
commission,patronage, live performance, (merchandise is a subset of mass patronage)
Maybe. Maybe not. I would guess music would still be produced, because people like going to concerts. I would guess that paintings would still be produced, because people like originality. I would guess movies would still be produced, given that people like going to the movie theater. And I would guess that books would still be produced, since some people like to read.
pretty sure that being first to market is important. And with lots of collectors things, people are not going to want the “fradulent” copy of a book. People will know the original publisher and certainly wouldn’t want to show off a book on their book shelf that was from a copycat publisher. How would other publishers know which books were worth copying or not, well they would have to see how sales were going, meaning the first to print actually made money on it, and at that point the demand would probably be smaller. Then once you get a reputation, you can try to build up a bunch of pre-sales before releasing the book and make money on appearances and book signings and agree only to sign books published by the original publisher.
Because the anti-IP people claim that open source innovation substitutes for private investment in consumer software, yet are unable to demonstrate a single innovation of open source software.
Which has nothing to do with IP. Closed-source software can still exist without IP.
This only works because there does not exist a legitimate market for book copies, hence copies for sale are of suspect quality. If book publishers could sell any other publisher’s books, then the copy would be identical in quality. They would likely be able to obtain it from leaks by other employees (whose non-disclosure agreements, like any other form of copyright agreement, would be invalid) before the initial publisher released it.
Any way you put it, the author is not going to get paid an advance to write the book, hence the supply of books will shrink.
Google apps is not an innovation?
Vmware ESX is not an innovation?
S3 and Various forms of cloud computing are not innovations?
There are literally thousands of consumer product that run on the bottom two platforms. I won’t write a book for you. I have little energy for someone willing to remain ignorant.
If we actually sat here and thought of all the things that transpired from open-source software we’d be here all day.
Let me ask you this.
If it makes more sense to license goods you’ve created than why don’t colleges license the information they teach you? Then request a royalty fee everytime you employ said knowledge?
Exactly
Not if I can sell Microsoft Office for 2$ a CD. Not if a large corporation can buy one CD for 2$ and run it on thousands of office PCs.
As I said 3+ times now? Structure of production will change. What makes you think software will be distributed in the same fashion it has been?
Stranger, please explain to us how Fascistic protectionist measures are better then straight capitalism.
Millions of consumer products also run on electricity, that doesn’t mean you can conflate the production of electricity with the consumer product itself.
Just name one open-source consumer product. It would shock me, as it would violate a fundamental law of economics, but it should be possible if you’re correct. I’m only asking for one!
It won’t be, that’s the whole point. The consumers will be hurt by the destruction of the consumer software business. If there was no need for IP, as you claim, then this business would not disappear as it would already be operating under this model!
So basically, the anti-IP argument is now based on name-calling?