There are TWO groups that I have the “best interests’ in that is first myself, and second my clients.

As you explained, you have worked in various jobs and business, you know that the health of that business is the first priority and your clients are second.

After all, if you are not in business you are not able to service your clients.

So the first basic tenant of a business agreement is an agreement that the provider of that service will be able to sustain it’s business model, stay in business and provide the required service to the client.

This is the precept of “Due Diligence” that is the requirement of the provider to ensure their capabibility to provide.

So, therefore the “best interests” of my clients is the ongoing success and prosperity of MY business and therefore ‘my best interests’.

If for me to run my business I need to hire 10 software engineers (I never hire ‘programmers’, or anyone with FOSS/Linux/GNU in their resume) I have to each week pay those engineers.

For me to pay them I need to be paid !

For me to be paid I need to be able to provide a product to a certain number of PAYING clients, amortize, and charge that number of clients the amount I require to pay my staff and to keep my business operational.

If it is necessary to take measures to ensure that people who want my product cannot get it for free, as opposed to paying for it, I will take any measures necessary to do that.

Because when that occures, as you know you are not then able to amortize costs. So the ‘honest’ people who are willing to pay a reasonable price and insure the ‘best interests’ of both parties, so the synergy can continue have to pay more to subsidise those who think that if they can they have a right to take the work of other’s off those who are willing to fairly pay for that product.

When you are working in a business, do you go to your managers and tell them “in the ‘best interests’ of our clients I feel you should pay me $0 money, and we give away our product/service to our clients for free…”

Would that work, could you build a ‘business model’ off of that ?

Of course not, no a business’s first priority is to remain in business, without that basic concept the business will not exist and you’re product or service cannot be provided.

That is what I do not ‘get’ from the comments of many here, who parrot Mikes word.

This is the most basic of basic economics, and natural principles.

It is not what you own that makes you what you are, it is what you know, and can do.

Sure, if you are a skilled writer, and you get people to read what you write, and somehow you can make money from that (with advertising I assume), then good for you.

You are providing a service to your clients.

But if you were not able to afford to costs of providing that service because of lack of revinue or funds would you still provide it ?

I would expect “NO”, of course not, as you cant pay for it.
So it is your responsibility to extract money from somewhere if you want to provide the service you are providing.

If Capcom wants to provide software of a specific functionality, and they require X amount of money to achieve that, it is not possible for them to do that unless there is the client base and price structure to enable that to occur.

Because as you know, people do not work for nothing, nor do they provide products or services in a way that will stop them from fairly amortizing the cost of their business across their paying clients.

Lets take an example.

The airline industry, for them to remain in business they need enough people to pay for the aircraft, the pilots, the fuel, and infrastructure, therefore to minimise costs they try to move as many people as possible per flight.

They have BIG plains and can carry a large number of people.

Each passenger pay’s for a percentage of the fuel and costs of the flight, it is ‘amortized’ over the passengers.

Each passenger has to pay a certain amount to cover their share of the overall costs.
If this does not occur then the airline will not be able to afford to fuel or pilots or plane and will go out of business, and withdraw it’s service.

No everyone loses.

If each passenger pays “their way” then the airline company can remain in business, and they can purchase fuel and hire planes and conduct a business that rightly is in the best interests first of the business and second of the client.

how much do you think it would cost you to fly from LA to NY if you were the only paying client ?

Do you think you can reasinly afford that ?

NO, of course not. That is why airline companies try to fly many people and spread the cost out accordingly.

That is the only way for them to provide that product/service to their clients at a reasonable cost and remain able to continue to provide that service.

If an airline just let anyone ride on their plains at any time without them paying for it, then who would then be willing to pay for it ? who pays for the fuel, pilots and airplane ?

If Capcom let anyone use their software without paying for it, then who gets to pay for the programmers and the business that supports them ?

If you cannot support a viable business model you fail both your own business and your clients and potential clients of your product of service.

A viable business model means being fairly paid for the product and services you provide and performing due diligence with that money to ensure you’re business and therefore service remains.

A creator of a movie is not able to create that movie unless he has a reasonable expectation of being able to amortize out the cost of production amoung a specific minimum number of paying clients and a specific pricing and cost structure.

That means if no one is willing to pay for it, he wont make it, sound familure ?

The function of my business is simply to solve problem’s, “technical solutions” is what I do.

I have clients that ask me to solve a problem for them. For example.

I have had requests such as

“I want a machine that will test all parameters of a PV Cell (photovoltaic cell, solar cell), including Eff, FF and all electrical parameters, that is light frequency selective across the visible and solar specturm and with a test range intensity of 0 to 20 ‘suns’.

As well as a calibrated “ONE SUN” spectrally equivalent light source.
Oh, its gott’a be fully automated and provide all information in multiple data formats and in real time!!… design, build, calibrate/test and deliver with documentation and training in 3 months?”

And my response ?

Sure, easy, but you need more than that, you will also require a cold plate cooler for the cell under test and temperature control and monitoring, and I will ensure that the client get what he needs and not just what he asked for.

But not more than what he needs and what he wants, I then take this job on as an “easy one” that is trivial, then set about to exceed my clients expectations.

He pays me well, he gets exactly what he wanted and needed and I get to go onto another project and provide for them a technical solution to the ‘problem’.

So my business, or my product/service is my IP, it is my interlectual property, it is what I know, not what I own.

When a client come to me and say “I want to purchase your product” what they are buying is what I know, and what I can do. They did not look at a catalogue and say “he sell’s one of them things we need”.

My clients come to me and say, we need you to create something for us that we need, but are unable to create ourselves.

I can do it because I have the Intellectual property (knowledge) to perform that task.

I do not teach them everything I know and how to design and build it themselves, they pay me to teach myself everthing I know and to design the thing and provide it to them.

And yes, they do pay me before the product exists and before the solution to the problem has been found.

They pay what I ask them to pay, I ask them to pay me enough for me to maintain my business and do my work plus a reward for doing the work for them, and not for someone else (thats called profit).

So that is possibly one reason why I state that the majory of people here who claim IP has no value would be those that don’t seem to understand that it is the ONLY value there is. Without it you have nothing.

I know the value of IP, as does everyone who has it.
And most that do not, also know it’s value, that is why they are more than happy to pay me well for me to apply my IP to their problem.

Another example would be

Can you provide full 24/7 support of our countries armed forces portable satellite communications equimpment, and testing/repair and planned maintenance of our entire range of SatCom equipment, as well as 24/7 phone support from field operators for emergency service restoration

Yes, no problems.

They are paying me for my IP, ie, they are paying me for what I know, or more specifically what I can do with what I know.

Now that is “life and death” stuff ! imagine if you are under fire and you’re phone home for support does not work !

I would be just as bad as your gun not working or far worse, So for them it is not a matter of ‘cost’ it is a matter of it working, and it working is due to the original design and my IP and what I know and can do to ensure it remains working.

a contract like this I am paid a fixed price per ‘service restoration’ for specific systems.

So for example if I am paid $800 dollars for a peice of equimpement and because I have alot of IP I am able to identify the problem and rectify it in 30 minutes.

So for 30 minutes of applying IP I am pain $800, of course extensive testing and servicing will consume several hours, what leaves my bench is something that is “as good or better than new”.

So when the solder in the field turns it on to “phone home” the lights come one and it rings and is answered.

So very few businesses are based on ‘what you own’ most if not all commerce is based on IP, or what you know and what you can do with that information, that intellectual property that you posses.

The ‘high’ cost of drug development is another good example, it is based on knowledge, which is IP, the cost of the development of a new drug is amortized among the ‘non-starters’ and overheads, like paying scientists to conduct R&D and product development/testing.

The value is in the IP not in the tablet or pill you take, yes that is why it is cheap to create generic, because it is not necessary for a generic drug company to conduct product development or refinement (it is forbidden by law).

Because generic drug manufactures have to follow the IP of the company that developed the compound in the first place (otherwise it is not generic).

Generic companies do not develop new drugs, or conduct their own product development.

There has to be a mechanism to allow those companies like any other company to remain in business and to perform the service they are paid to provide.

If that is patents, security (secrets), copyright, DRM or whatever method that is required (locks on doors, security guards, shop keepers) Then whatever it takes to remain in a position to provide the service to your own business and in turn to your clients.

It does not matter what you do, that is how the economy and human interaction functions.
My mutual agreement products and services are exchanged.

of course next time you watch “a beautiful mind” you can consider the “best” for any one party in a group of negiotation parties is what is ‘best’ for all parties, and not ‘best’ for any one of the group.

So you do not run a business for the best of your clients, you run it for the best of your business and the best of your clients at the same time.

The best outcome for someone like Capcom and their customers is what is best for all parties, that is their customers get a product they are willing to pay a certain sum for, and the company get’s to provide that product for the sum they require to provide that product and remain in operation.

The more people that use it and dont pay for it, increases the burden on those who are willing to use it and pay for it.

To the point and beyond where you not only lose functionality but the product itself and the company capable of creating that product.

It is also wrong, to state (as Mick often does ) that ‘they would not use it if they had to pay for it.

Of course, that applies to everything, but with the extension of When you cannot afford it.

I would not use an jet plane if I had to pay for it and I could not afford to pay for it.
I would not purchase a song if I had to pay for it and could not afford to pay for it.

Because I cannot afford to pay for something does not entitle me (or you) to have that thing anyway.

Or to assume because you can acquire it at no cost that it therefore has ‘no value’.

I dont know, but it seems the attitude here is very distorted or something. It’s hard to fathom how people cannot see what it clearly in front of them.

As I have stated before “It’s not that hard!!!”