[xsexymasterix]

No Govt. Subsides

No Green Initiatives

No Govt intervention

Just good old free market capitalism ... sure is good while it lasts

[lopaayd]

No Govt. Subsides
No Green Initiatives
No Govt intervention
Just good old free market capitalism ... sure is good while it lasts

Apple obviously benefits from government via education spending. They're all over the ARRA expenditure reports. And like many other companies they get tax incentives to build in various locations.

North Carolina Senate OKs multimillion-dollar tax break for Apple; final vote Monday – MacDailyNews - Welcome Home

As for green initiatives, yeah, they have none of those... Apple - The Story Behind Apple's Environmental Footprint

[Teareerah]

Apple obviously benefits from government via education spending. They're all over the ARRA expenditure reports. And like many other companies they get tax incentives to build in various locations.

North Carolina Senate OKs multimillion-dollar tax break for Apple; final vote Monday – MacDailyNews - Welcome Home

As for green initiatives, yeah, they have none of those... Apple - The Story Behind Apple's Environmental Footprint

I never have a problem with states doing whatever it is that states want to do ... I am talking Federal. Lowering a tax rate at the state level only shows that lower taxes are business friendly and creates jobs.

What Federal Green initiative is behind your link .. none! It is a company that has chosen to be 'green'!

I am still looking for their subsides, initiatives, or intervention from the federal govt. Can you help me?

[Effofqueeno]

So basically you've moved all the goalposts. Why am I not surprised...

Of course without the Federal Government to enforce patents, one wonders where Apple would be.

[Sxedlawb]

So basically you've moved all the goalposts. Why am I not surprised...

Of course without the Federal Government to enforce patents, one wonders where Apple would be.

Deflect; why am I not surprised ....

[Cemeuncex]

You came on here trumpeting Apple as some capitalist success story.. when presented with evidence that they are just like any other company you changed the terms of your argument. It's your SOP.

Targeted company-specific tax breaks, be it federal, state or local, is not "good old free market capitalism" by any stretch of the imagination.

Patent rights enforced by the government might be an old tradition, but it still doesn't represent a "free market" ideal.

[hoarrimilsora]

You came on here trumpeting Apple as some capitalist success story.. when presented with evidence that they are just like any other company you changed the terms of your argument. It's your SOP.

Targeted company-specific tax breaks, be it federal, state or local, is not "good old free market capitalism" by any stretch of the imagination.

Patent rights enforced by the government might be an old tradition, but it still doesn't represent a "free market" ideal.

Please explain how a STATE offering lower tax rates than another isn't free market?

Same goes for Patent protection?

[Vikonbarius]

I suppose I can consider corporate bribery as just another part of the market. But I don't think it's what most people think of when the phrase "good old free market capitalism" is used. And it seems if you carry that logic to its end, federal subsidies are analogous. It's the US offering a better subsidy and/or lower tax rates than another country. Country vs. country or state vs. state, it seems the same (and this is the argument for lowering the US corporate tax rate, no?)

Patents, as they exist today, restrict competition. As you know this prevents a true free market. Even silly stuff like the unlock swipe on the iPhone is patented. Free market proponents such as Cato have written that patents can discourage innovation.

[Idorsearogele]

So basically you've moved all the goalposts. Why am I not surprised...

Of course without the Federal Government to enforce patents, one wonders where Apple would be.

Who's moving the goalposts here? Patents are actually one of the things government should be doing. And, frankly, they do it very, very poorly. The patent system in the software world is notoriously broken.

[nannysuetle]

Who's moving the goalposts here? Patents are actually one of the things government should be doing. And, frankly, they do it very, very poorly. The patent system in the software world is notoriously broken.

A leftist always loves to ignore the constitution when convienent

[chzvacmyye]

We're not discussing whether patents are the proper role of government or the current performance of the patent system, but whether they represent a 'free market'.

We're not talking about the Constitution, either. Comments like that are why it's impossible to have any kind of real discussion.

[shumozar]

[QUOTE=Politburo;396580]We're not discussing whether patents are the proper role of government or the current performance of the patent system, but whether they represent a 'free market'.

We're not talking about the Constitution, either. Comments like that are why it's impossible to have any kind of real discussion.[/QUOTE

Protectong patents surly represents the free market. W/out it why would anyone invent anything?

[occallExtet]

Surly you can't be serious. I am serious, and don't call me surly.

[st01en_lox]

Protectong patents surly represents the free market. W/out it why would anyone invent anything?

Patents, patent protection and, well, anything that prevents one from doing business are inherently anti free trade, i.e. consumer protections, employee safety regs, etc.

ETA: in theory, the one who introduces a product to market could have a first to market advantage, other must play catchup in design, manufacturing, distribution, etc. Imagine a world without patents, you'd be free to build an iPhone yourself. If you can get it to market better and cheaper than Apple, people would buy from you instead, or Apple would take less profit and match your price.

[Brainpole]

Patents, patent protection and, well, anything that prevents one from doing business are inherently anti free trade, i.e. consumer protections, employee safety regs, etc.

ETA: in theory, the one who introduces a product to market could have a first to market advantage, other must play catchup in design, manufacturing, distribution, etc. Imagine a world without patents, you'd be free to build an iPhone yourself. If you can get it to market better and cheaper than Apple, people would buy from you instead, or Apple would take less profit and match your price.

Should I be able to steal Apples technology or JK Rowling's writings (copyright) and be able to hawk it as my own with no punishment?

[swissloveone]

Should I be able to steal Apples technology or JK Rowling's writings (copyright) and be able to hawk it as my own with no punishment?

Interesting that you chose to mix patent and copyright, or rather introduce copyright. Patents, specifically, can be a state sponsored denial of one's property rights. If I independantly arrive at an invenetion that is patented, I have stolen noone's idea and yet am forbidden to make, market or sell it and can be forced to provide restitution should I unwittenly done so. Copyright, by contrast, requires the complantant to prove that another had access to one's work.

[cigattIcTot]

Interesting that you chose to mix patent and copyright, or rather introduce copyright. Patents, specifically, can be a state sponsored denial of one's property rights. If I independantly arrive at an invenetion that is patented, I have stolen noone's idea and yet am forbidden to make, market or sell it and can be forced to provide restitution should I unwittenly done so. Copyright, by contrast, requires the complantant to prove that another had access to one's work.

I do see how patents have ceated monopolies & patent law has gotten out of hand but how do we decide if one has stolen or not stolen the invention from the first inventor?

[mrllxp]

Patents, patent protection and, well, anything that prevents one from doing business are inherently anti free trade, i.e. consumer protections, employee safety regs, etc.

ETA: in theory, the one who introduces a product to market could have a first to market advantage, other must play catchup in design, manufacturing, distribution, etc. Imagine a world without patents, you'd be free to build an iPhone yourself. If you can get it to market better and cheaper than Apple, people would buy from you instead, or Apple would take less profit and match your price.

Hasn't google and the android platform accopmlish this in thesmartphone arena?

[Angeheade]

I do see how patents have ceated monopolies & patent law has gotten out of hand but how do we decide if one has stolen or not stolen the invention from the first inventor?

I never said it was easy, neat or clean. A free market economy would be messy, the vast majority of us would lose big time with a very few number of tycoons at the top. You think it's bad now, this is nothing by comparison. The idea of pure free market is a romantic notion until you pull some of the curtains back--imagine quite literally no regulation. Each indiviual would need to be an expert at every nuance of every facet of life lest they be robbed blind by wordsmiths and fineprint that needn't be accurate much less in good faith...it'd be a nightmare!

Hasn't google and the android platform accopmlish this in thesmartphone arena?

In a word, sorta. They've managed to develop a competing technology and package it in a similar enough form factor. They've essentially reignited the PC/Mac wars.

[gettoblaster]

I never said it was easy, neat or clean. A free market economy would be messy, the vast majority of us would lose big time with a very few number of tycoons at the top. You think it's bad now, this is nothing by comparison. The idea of pure free market is a romantic notion until you pull some of the curtains back--imagine quite literally no regulation. Each indiviual would need to be an expert at every nuance of every facet of life lest they be robbed blind by wordsmiths and fineprint that needn't be accurate much less in good faith...it'd be a nightmare!

Not necessarily ... we would still have a judicial system and the strong, high quality, honest corporations would flourish. Would some get hurt .. yes; nothing is perfect but the free market is the closest to perfection and it will promote more freedom and liberty that we have seen in 80+ years.