Non-Disclosure Violations

Name
Email
Subject
Comment *
File	Select/drop/paste files here
* = required field	[▶ Show post options & limits] Confused? See the FAQ.

File: 1449036028240-0.png (28.59 KB, 256x256, 1:1, cattgirls.png)

File: 1449036028277-1.jpg (65.39 KB, 782x960, 391:480, war_on_drugs_3.jpg)

File: 1449036028316-2.png (478.74 KB, 837x1203, 279:401, War_on_drugs_1.png)

File: 1449036028318-3.jpg (98 KB, 640x1002, 320:501, war_on_drugs_2.jpg)

Non-Disclosure Violations Anonymous 12/02/15 (Wed) 06:00:18 No.13498

If a woman discloses information that violates a nondisclosure agreement (such as the creation of a super-serum to make everyone a better/faster/stronger/smarter person, or the secrets to genetically engineering cat girls), in a free society, should she be subject to pay the fines of nondisclosure, or the lost revenue when those trade secrets are inevitably utilized to create a cheaper, better product for the public? If she should be sued for the lost revenue, then does it matter that the public is better off because of her violation of the non-disclosure agreement?

Pics unrelated.

Anonymous 12/02/15 (Wed) 16:05:48 No.13511

File: 1449072349038.png (326.09 KB, 1173x715, 1173:715, 1440315990520.png)

In a free society, everything already belongs to the public.

In an ancap-style "free society", this situation can't happen, as there are no "public", and there are no incentives to do research.

Anonymous 12/02/15 (Wed) 18:47:10 No.13515

>>13498

>should she be subject to pay the fines of nondisclosure, or the lost revenue when those trade secrets are inevitably utilized to create a cheaper, better product for the public?

Depends on the contract.

>If she should be sued for the lost revenue, then does it matter that the public is better off because of her violation of the non-disclosure agreement?

No. Why should it?

>>13511

>In an ancap-style "free society", this situation can't happen, as there are no "public", and there are no incentives to do research.

First off, your premise is wrong. Of course there is a public in an ancap-society, it just isn't regarded as an entity separate from the individuals that comprise it, unlike now. Second, even if there was no public (which is logically impossible, but let's assume for a moment that what you said makes any sense whatsoever), then there would still be incentive for doing research. Ever heard of the word "profit", for example?

Anonymous 12/02/15 (Wed) 19:22:22 No.13518

File: 1449084142766.png (197.26 KB, 550x550, 1:1, 1376602051837.png)

>>13515

Research is only profitable because of patents, grants and other public funding. Not to mention the open nature of science: without publishing your data, conclusions, and ways to exactly reproduce what you just did, scientific progress would grind to a halt.

It's also expensive as fuck and risky. From an economic point of view, you are basically throwing out money on the window

On the other hand, do you know what would be extremely profitable? Reverse engineering and corporate espionage.

Anonymous 12/02/15 (Wed) 21:37:51 No.13525

>>13518

Most of the great ('Murrican) inventions of the 19th and 20th century had a profit motive, dumbass.

Anonymous 12/02/15 (Wed) 22:57:22 No.13533

>>13511

>In a free society, everything already belongs to the public

How so? Who makes sure that everyone shares?

Can the band of homeless guys from downtown crash at your place because it belongs to them too?

Anonymous 12/03/15 (Thu) 07:09:26 No.13541

File: 1449126567161.gif (309.03 KB, 480x270, 16:9, 1387663033886.gif)

>>13525

>only profitable because of patents, grants and other public funding.

Anonymous 12/03/15 (Thu) 07:43:55 No.13547

>>13541

>Implying patents and grants need to be publicly funded

Anonymous 12/04/15 (Fri) 10:22:55 No.13594

>>13547

Oh man, let's just replace everything with charity! It works so well! People just love to work for free and give away their wealth! (Unless it's called communism. Fuck that shit!)

Anonymous 12/04/15 (Fri) 11:06:59 No.13596

>>13594

According to your argument, charity should not exist at all, yet it does. That's because there is an incentive to giving your shit away for free, it just isn't a monetary one.

>B-but then why can't we have communism?

Because you can't force people to be charitable, for one - and communism requires a shitload more working for free than charity does -, and because even if you could, then your planned economy would suck at distributing services and goods.

Anonymous 12/04/15 (Fri) 12:24:36 No.13599

>>13596

I'm pretty sure governments provide people with monetary incentives to do charity.

Anonymous 12/04/15 (Fri) 20:23:51 No.13609

>>13599

There are non-monetary incentives to charity as well.

See: The Church, businesses who hire desperate folks as interns/apprentices that they found at charity events, etc.

Anonymous 12/05/15 (Sat) 00:08:01 No.13617

>>13594

>let's just replace everything with charity

That is what Tesla did by ripping up his patents. That is what Ford did by ignoring the patent on automobiles.

Anonymous 12/05/15 (Sat) 06:37:43 No.13630