
Elon Musk Is a Modern Henry Ford. That's Bad - fanf2
https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2018-03-22/elon-musk-is-a-modern-henry-ford-that-s-bad
======
finchisko
Not sure why history made Henry Ford a hero and example of modern capitalist.
To me, Henry Ford is pretty controversial person. He started his business by
infringing already valid car patents. He (as underdog) had luck, that it was
in time America has started battle with monopolies, so public sentiment was
probably on his side. Trying to reproduce what Ford did back then today,
layers would rip you apart.

He also supported german nazi party and directly supported Hitler with annual
50000$ donations. In one of his factories he ordered to suppress employee
strike, resulting to many injuries and also some deaths.

So now, where is the similarity with Elon Musk? I see Elon musk as true
visionary and honest guy.

Oh yes, the article is about manufacturing process, not about comparing
characters. :)

~~~
Findeton
A Patent is nothing more than a government-granted temporary monopoly. Thus,
patents are bad, as in they intervene the free market.

~~~
finchisko
Imagine you've spent millions developing revolutionary product. And then some
random company, will steel your idea and start producing clones for fraction
of costs as they didn't have to spent any money on R&D.

What sane person on earth would put money on R&D in that kind of environment?

Of course, you can find many examples, where patents are actually hurting
invention and progress, but I don't see any other way to protect your
investment (both financial and intellectual).

~~~
mindcrime
_And then some random company, will steel your idea and start producing clones
for fraction of costs as they didn 't have to spent any money on R&D._

If it is that easy for somebody to clone your thing, it probably wasn't
actually all that revolutionary. And anyway, all this dynamic will do is force
an innovation "arms race". You won't be able to just invent something and then
rest on your laurels, getting rich while you laugh your way to the bank.
You'll have to innovate continuously to stay ahead of the would-be "idea
grabbers". That's a net win for everybody, even if you don't get quite as rich
in the end.

~~~
finchisko
I cannot agree with you. But that is OK. ;)

I give you one of many examples. Transistor. Is cheap to produce, but hard to
invent.

Also "just invent something and then rest on your laurels". I don't see single
reason why it's bad thing.

~~~
mindcrime
_I give you one of many examples. Transistor. Is cheap to produce, but hard to
invent._

Cheap to produce _now_ , sure. Was it "cheap to produce" shortly after it was
invented? And do you think the transistors we talk about today are identical
to the ones invented in 1947? Or has there been continued innovation in that
space, yielding BJT's, FET's, MOSFETS, and so on?

If you're the original inventor of a "thing" it's almost always going to be
the case that you (or somebody with access to your engineers, etc. on an
"official" basis) is going to have an advantage in terms of producing the
"thing", simply because you know it and its innards better than the would be
cloners... (and if this isn't the case, I go back to my assertion that the
"thing" probably isn't actually very revolutionary at all).

Anyway, if you invent something, and you feel the pressure to keep inventing
because _eventually_ the cloners will figure out how to build your thing as
well as you, then that's a net win when "v2" (think, BJT, FET, etc.) gets
invented sooner than it might have otherwise.

 _Also "just invent something and then rest on your laurels". I don't see
single reason why it's bad thing._

Of course if you care about only a strictly selfish measure of how rich you
become in the end, then you'd rather be able to just invent something, and
monopolize it for _n_ years. My point is that A. you can make money off an
invention even without that artificial monopoly, and B. society wins when
there is an arms race effect propelling innovation.

~~~
Chyzwar
> Cheap to produce now, sure. Was it "cheap to produce" shortly after it was
> invented? And do you think the transistors we talk about today are identical
> to the ones invented in 1947? Or has there been continued innovation in that
> space, yielding BJT's, FET's, MOSFETS, and so on?

Exactly, innovation happens in this space because high investment is protected
by patents and licenses.

> If you're the original inventor of a "thing" it's almost always going to be
> the case that you (or somebody with access to your engineers, etc. on an
> "official" basis) is going to have an advantage in terms of producing the
> "thing", simply because you know it and its innards better than the would be
> cloners... (and if this isn't the case, I go back to my assertion that the
> "thing" probably isn't actually very revolutionary at all).

Not true, There is plenty of tech companies that create technology but do not
manufacture. ARM Holding would be an excellent example. There is also plenty
of companies that manufacture but do not design.

> Anyway, if you invent something, and you feel the pressure to keep inventing
> because eventually the cloners will figure out how to build your thing as
> well as you, then that's a net win when "v2" (think, BJT, FET, etc.) gets
> invented sooner than it might have otherwise.

Patent laws include expiring period. This period is designed to make R&D
profitable but keep pressure for innovation.

> Of course if you care about only a strictly selfish measure of how rich you
> become in the end, then you'd rather be able to just invent something, and
> monopolize it for n years. My point is that A. you can make money off an
> invention even without that artificial monopoly, and B. society wins when
> there is an arms race effect propelling innovation.

In some cases, you will be forced to provide licenses for you patented
technology to prevent monopoly (Qualcomm/DDR). Nowadays is difficult to make
any money from new inventions because low hanging fruits are gone.

~~~
mindcrime
_Exactly, innovation happens in this space because high investment is
protected by patents and licenses._

If patents were the only thing promoting innovation, then nothing would have
been invented before patents became available. We already know that isn't the
case, so your argument that innovation is a direct result of patents is a bit
questionable. OTOH, one could argue (without or without patents) that part of
the impetus to innovate (for a company/firm) is "innovate or die". Eg, if your
competitors are coming out with newer, better "things" and you aren't, then
you are going to die. Or perhaps be reduced to the role of creating cheap
knock-offs of inventions created by others, but "fast follower" strategy
aside, being the knock-off vendor is usually _not_ the desirable position in
the race.

 _Not true, There is plenty of tech companies that create technology but do
not manufacture. ARM Holding would be an excellent example. There is also
plenty of companies that manufacture but do not design._

That's nothing about copy-catting though. That's talking about licensing /
subcontracting just because a company doesn't want to do it's own fab work.
That's totally reasonable, but it's a choice. In either case, original
inventors OR licensed manufacturers, are going to have an advantage over copy-
cats because they know the "thing" better.

 _Patent laws include expiring period. This period is designed to make R &D
profitable but keep pressure for innovation._

Sure, and I'm saying that doing the equivalent of reducing that time to zero
will do the most to create pressure for innovation.

Never mind all the problems with overly broad patents, fear of submarine
patents, etc., and all the ways patents inhibit, rather than promote,
innovation.

~~~
Chyzwar
It literally cost billions to make any innovation in silicon, pharmaceutics,
automotive etc.

> That's nothing about copy-catting though. That's talking about licensing /
> subcontracting just because a company doesn't want to do it's own fab work.
> That's totally reasonable, but it's a choice. In either case, original
> inventors OR licensed manufacturers, are going to have an advantage over
> copy-cats because they know the "thing" better.

Licensing only work because you hold patents. Patents are what prevents others
from copying ARM ISA. Companies can specialize in what they do best.

> Never mind all the problems with overly broad patents, fear of submarine
> patents, etc., and all the ways patents inhibit, rather than promote,
> innovation.

Patents can be easily invalidated if there is prior art. Patents are not what
slows down innovation. Cost of human labor is the most important factor for
innovation.

