Hacker News Reader

>It would be great if there was a government institution which would compensate such businesses for their tech to open source it.

Wouldn't that just incentivise more negative behaviour from businesses, since investors would know should they go bust, the government will buy all their IP?

It seems potentially more sensible to pass a law that the IP of any business that fails becomes public domain.

> Wouldn't that just incentivise more negative behaviour from businesses, since investors would know should they go bust, the government will buy all their IP?

All businesses who would use such a scheme would be started by friends of politicians and public servants, with the sole goal of getting this tax payer buy-out for worthless IP.

This sort of negativity you can use to shut down changing anything, about anything, in any system.

It's not inappropriate, but it is important to just have it inform the debate instead of ruling the debate. Yes, there should be constraints put in place to limit the potential for abuse, and as well oversight to ensure that people are following those constraints appropriately.

"But then the oversight program will be targeted!" I hear you say. Yes, yes it will. And sometimes by policy makers with undue interest in weakening oversight. Sometimes just infiltrated by monied interests who stand to benefit.

None of that is a reason to do nothing.

It's not negativity, it is realism. Wherever the government gets involved corruption ensues. It is a rule, not an exception. Abuse is not potential, it is guaranteed - due to the kind of people involved. Especially when business owners can benefit from corruption. Strict constraints to deter abuse are always put in place in these programs, and they are always completely inefficient and/or supervised by people who are in on the scheme.

I don't see it as negativity to be against the worst imaginable solution to a problem. It doesn't mean I suggest doing nothing.

It is negativity.

> Wherever the government gets involved corruption ensues. It is a rule, not an exception.

This is true. If your requirement is to never implement some system which can be abused (even a little bit), you are against government in any form. If you're not advocating for no government and you're OK with a little bit of abuse, then it's an argument over scale.

There will always be some abuse, but the key to any program or system is to minimize the potential for abuse. There's abuse in the US welfare system, but broadly the consensus among anyone but partisan pundits is that the good the system does far outweighs the abuse within the system.

> Strict constraints to deter abuse are always put in place in these programs, and they are always completely inefficient and/or supervised by people who are in on the scheme.

This is not true, and completely defeatist. If you think the US Government is hopelessly corrupted by vested interests - you have not spent time in a country with a hopelessly corrupt government.

The US Government is mildly corrupt, not wildly corrupt:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corruption_Perceptions_Index

> I don't see it as negativity to be against the worst imaginable solution to a problem.

More negativity. I can think of far worse solutions than what I have suggested.

If you're simply advocating for the private sector to solve the problem instead of the government getting involved, I am wondering where you live where the private sector left to its own devices doesn't rampantly pillage to its heart's content. I'd like to move there!

There is a widespread false idea that there exist some kind of system in governance, but this has never existed. It is just humans in an eternal power struggle. Whenever the "system" or rules don't benefit the rulers, they are not valid. It's a system to the extent that it exists inside the heads of the people who believe in that system. And most of people have a warped idea of what that system even nominally is, because their idea of it is by how they've been told by parents, teachers and other uninformed. Almost nobody has actually sat down and read the laws, the acts, and other documents.

Saying the government should solve this lost IP problem is like saying that God will fix it or the King will fix it. And the "government should solve it" argument is always a top comment on any HN thread, no matter what is the subject matter. Isn't something strange if we always have the same solution no matter the problem? What is the purpose of discussion if all problems present or future are already solved?

I haven't mentioned the US government, I'm not from there. I'm from a place where corruption is rife within government on all levels, and in most private businesses - who of course work together with politicians and public servants for this goal. And that is a nation who is far less corrupt than the US in the corruption perception index - which doesn't really say anything about actual corruption, just what people responded in a form. The general population is ignorant and don't even understand what corruption is, they think getting illicit funds from the government to your business is just being smart.

The private sector can only pillage if they have the help of government. Having the government buy obsolete IP is a recipe for more pillaging.

I do not know what to tell you. The history of my country is filled with examples of the government successfully addressing problems too big (or too inconvenient) for the private industry to address. To the extent the private industry is enabled by the government to pillage, it is lack of regulation or lack of enforcement. The solution to that is more governance, not less. The private industry will not decide to do what is best for consumers, or the environment, or healthy competition. They will maximize profit at all costs every time.

Some examples of problems too big in my country for private industry: Water Pollution. By every conceivable metric the situation is drastically improved since the 1970's when the Clean Water Act was passed. Lake Erie no longer catches fire! Chicago built a 30+ mile giant underground tunnel to route the city's sewage to a holding quarry for treatment at immense effort and expense. No private company has the resources to do something like that - just ask Elon about Hyperloop!

Consumers in my country are paying more for most things because antitrust enforcement fell out of vogue because the system was infiltrated by vested interests. The solution to that problem is more governance and not less; the private industry will not refuse to concentrate power and will not decide to split up monopolies or stop colluding via oligopolies.

I have no doubt the problems you are describing in your country are real. What I am not hearing is solutions. Just complaints.

Again - there are many examples of governance being a force for good. In fact, the successes of government are more defined by a lack of tragedies. Like a good DBA or SRE team, and similarly underappreciated.

> I have no doubt the problems you are describing in your country are real. What I am not hearing is solutions. Just complaints.

The best solution is individual. It is probably the only solution. Individual as in you do what you can to protect your person, your property, and your labour from the government. Apart from that I can only use words try to wake people up from the cult of government worship, but I'm aware of the futility of it. People will eagerly send their own children to die in a ditch by artillery fire in order to protect their false idol of government.

>At some point, the problem may no longer exist, or you may not be able to continue to make a profit. That's OK! You can pivot, or move on to another business.

Does your landlord take pivots as currency?

Anyway, I agree but for people complaining about layoffs. At some point, your job may no longer exist, or you may not be able to continue to take a salary. That's OK! You can pivot, or move on to another career.

I could imagine something like the Consumer Product Safety Commission tasked with recovering and open sourcing IP from shut down companies with products in people’s hands.