There is one choice, 1 vote for nihilismisdead's debate

Business Stealing and Business Innovation

  • Stealing Breeds Innovation

    If you are yet to see the film, “Pirates of Silicon Valley” I would definitely suggest that you watch this film. The film deals with the struggle between two computer innovators, Steve Jobs and Bill Gates. Neither Steve Jobs nor Bill Gates really have any amazing computer skills. Steve Jobs is recognized as a mouthpiece to sell the product and Bill Gates is recognized as a skilled negotiator for acquiring partnerships. So in on case Jobs is the seller of things and Gates is the man who can put companies together.

    These two character traits were important because Jobs also felt that innovation was key. Jobs walked into Xerox and ripped off and entire operating system, he named it Apple II. Upon doing so he ventured to create a team to improve on the original design, the Mac Team.

    Gates on the other hand was successful in convincing Jobs that he was in fact a friend of Apple Computers. He signed an agreement with Apple. Gates’ deals always mean to give services to a company but always maintaining copyrighted ownership to whatever they create. He convined Jobs to give him the Mac before it was made. Gates took the Mac’s system to IBM where he tore it apart and reproduced it in a newer better form. He released it to thousands of computer companies who released their products on the market a full year for Apple could get their Mac on the market.

    This sets up the context of this discussion. In terms of business ethics what is it to steal from someone else? For example if I was to invent the word, kulu… let’s say it means a discussion on business ethics… and you were to start using my word “kulu” is it stealing or borrowing?

    It is difficult in business to apply the standards of the individual to corporations. For what is it that corporations and companies do if not compete with each other. Why should a person not be able to take another person’s product and sell it?

    But it would seem my arguments are based on the love of micro-economy as opposed to the hate of macro-economy that this called also bring upon. For who is to stop massive Microsoft from buying out all industries and designating all control of things? It sounds like paranoid illusions, but just keep in mind that it is only by example and not by actuality.

    Under one premise is it okay to use someone else’s products?

    This is where I start my own discussion of this. I start with the concept of the substance. This is a full thing. A substance would be like a human, or a chair, or a car. It is an entire object. So when I say the substance of a chair I am talking about a full chair. When we distinguish between two types of chairs it is because they are not both the same type of chairs, they are the same substance, but a different type of that substance.

    In attempting to build a hierchy here we can start with what has been said so far:

    Substance Sub-substance

    Thus far there are two things we have established for a thing to be. The first is its entirity the second is a categorization of the substance. There are properties in each that make them different characterizations.

    Applying this to the case if I was to use the substance as an operating system I could name out various types of categories that could fit into this. I could say that there is an operating system out there that has windows supports and also text supports. These are two different categories that have their own sub-categories.

    So thus far we have:

    Substance Sub-substance Sub-Sub-Substance

    But if we were to take the windows support we could name one with Internet support and one without. We could name the one with Internet support as having build in Internet browsers or not. We can name the one with having built in Internet browsers with having PHP host. Thus we can find an infinite regression of characteristics that makes a thing a thing.

    What is the difference between stealing and innovation in a business?

    S, Stealing is, where your Sub, Substance, is their (x)Sub, or their infinitely regressing sub-substance.

    Thus stealing is: S = aSub is bx(Su

    Innovation would then be where: S doesnot(=) aSub is bx(Su

    Where a is subject and b is the object of stealing/innovating. In one situation we are saying that if a thing is the exact thing then it is stealing but if one is different from the other then it is innovating.

    If I was to take one of your products and resell it as mine, it is stealing. If I take one of your products, make an adjustment it is innovation. There is nothing on the face of this earth that is not an adjustment of something else. It may be something natural (IE: Horse=Car). It may be something unnatural (IE: Typewriter=Computer Keyboard). In the end nothing is truly created nor destroyed, it is merely innovated in a Darwinist progression of things.

    Personal Philosophy
    Voted for by nihilismisdead.
    Add a comment
  • :

 

None of the choices fit your opinion?  Add one →