If you cannot discriminate between a) just using something after the fact as a consumer or a corporation (like roads) and b) heavily lobbying for something evil and enforcing that evil like some (big) corporations and people do than that is your problem.

I never said anything about corporations themselves but only spoke about certain corporations:

“A company that massively supports and enables IP laws and heavily enforces them by calling the state to help it is NOT the same as a mere consumer.”

But you stated:

“Your mistake is viewing corporations as anything other then groups of individuals working for their self-interest and then not using the same criteria to judge them as you use to judge yourself.”

Something to think about for the “oh its just them evil politicians, but all the big companies are innocent”-followers:

Nobody said or believes that.

Imagine you lived in a kingdom with a cruel king. There are taxes and all that evil stuff.
What if someone (lets call him Bill Stevens) had a company there AND (!!) advised the king to grant him a monopoly?
What if Bill Stevens asked the king to enforce that monopoly?
What if Bill Stevens advised the king on new laws that diminish liberty?
What if Bill Stevens asked the king to give him some tax money (and tax the people living in that kingdom a bit more)?
What if Bill Stevens sued everyone copying his products?

Do you really think that only that cruel king and his underlings are the evil ones and Bill Stevens is just an innocent entrepeneur?

What if Bill Stevens asked the king to imprison some people who did not follow the aforementioned laws?

State-created monopolies/oligopolies do benefit the holder of that monopoly/oligopoly. The state enforces it but the company who holds that monopoly DOES profit (at the cost of all others).

@nate-m: If you are not able to read and understand (!) what I wrote than that is your own fault.

I did not write ANYTHING about mere companies which just exist in a state and use what is there. I wrote about big corporations that unmistakably are involved in creating and enforcing the (ip) laws.

Microsoft and many other big corporations and not just only there use a sound and fair business model but the use the illegitimate state laws to rise their profits.

It cannot be right for anyone to tell a robber who to rob next and what share someone wants.

No, the politicians themselves are not the only ones to blame.

“In other words they ask the people that are robbing them blind for a few favors.”

You are wrong: The do not ask them merely favors, but they ask them to rob OTHERS and share that stolen money.

Just look for all the laws regarding IP, monopolies, subsidies and so on.

We are not speaking about small companies following capitalistic rules but about big corporations which work together with the state in enslaving citizens in multiple ways.

You already used it in your quotation, you intellectual thief!

You are using an internet protocol developed at universities on the tax dollar. Keep taking it so personally though.

“Libertarians like you are a joke”

Oh no I’m so hurt I better change the way I think so you don’t think I’m a joke.

“you live in a dream world where you can justify what you do, but still have the temerity to criticize others”

Haha yes we don’t criticize others for doing the very things we ourselves do. That’s living in a dream world for ya!

“creating an artificial distinction that what you do is ok because you don’t have the courage or principles (martyrdom in Kinsella-speak) to back your position.”

Oh but this several-sentence long bitch-fest is a backing of your position? I have backed up my position with the argument that if Apple and Microsoft are guilty then we are all guilty because we do what they do. You just throw a tantrum and drop logical fallacies like you know what they are.

“At least I have the good sense to know I am a conscious schizophrenic. I’m not bullshitting myself that morality exists except when it inconveniences me.”

Yeah not ignoring the state entirely is immoral, cause you say so real angrily. You’re bullshitting yourself by thinking you know what morality is.

“@Sweatervest, stay away from big words. You’re making my argument for me.”

Haha okay whatever you say. I love when people don’t argue and think they have. See, as long as you simply claim I actually argued for you, it must be the case. No need to support that with… anything.

You need to stay away from arguments. You already misused “equivocation” and clearly have no capacity or interest to use logic so it’s clearly not your cup of tea. You just state your claims and bitch at your adversaries. Bravo.

Where is my hypocrisy? You don’t know me, don’t know where I live, whether I drive or not.

I know that you exist in this country or some other country. Either you take care of yourself or you leach off of other people.

You don’t know what I eat or how I earn my money.

I know that you act in self interest and work to provide for your needs.

Just like everybody that works at Apple or Microsoft.

Libertarians like you are a joke, you live in a dream world where you can justify what you do, but still have the temerity to criticize others, creating an artificial distinction that what you do is ok because you don’t have the courage or principles (martyrdom in Kinsella-speak) to back your position.

Your a the type of libertarian who is so intellectually dishonest you can’t see the forest for the trees. Who tries to make every issue a black and white and want to create vilians where there are none and absolutist position gets in the way of communication. You don’t discuss, you attack. You can’t seem to string together logical arguments and instead depend on what you think is clever one liners that, at the core of them, depends on you misappropriating the premise for the conclusion.

This may be helpful for you in the future:
http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/begging-the-question.html

At least I have the good sense to know I am a conscious schizophrenic. I’m not bullshitting myself that morality exists except when it inconveniences me

You make way to many assumptions.

Note, you did not answer my question. You tried to change the argument. Again, that’s the real intellectual dishonesty. When questioned on your claims, you obfuscate and evade. Which is what people have to do when they get called on their bullshit.

Your ‘question’ was more of a statement then a question. It’s a ‘either or’ statement.

It’s like me asking:

Are you intentionally a moron or just pretending to be one on the internet?
Are you going to change the subject or actually answer it?

It’s a bullshit question. I didn’t change the subject, I just don’t play your stupid little games.

Equivocation is the refuge of scoundrels.

Do you mind if I use that? It would come in handy!

You are hard to follow sometimes:

you start a company with the express company policy that it will never use the state courts *aggressively* against other companies, but that it will use them defensively. So this way shareholders who buy shares know what the policy is so they cannot blame managmenet and directors for not suing someone for patent infringement.

First, care to explain your assumption that state courts can be used aggressively against other companies? The doctrine of malicious prosecution for example, seems to be a safeguard against that kind of groundless legal action. So, I think it is fair to say that in order to go to trial, the plaintiff must have legitimate grounds for doing so, or it gets thrown out at prelminary hearings.

Second, aren’t you blurring the distinction between offensive and defensive actions? Countersuit is not the primary means of defending against legal action. It is only necessary that one challenge the elements of the charge with counter evidence; it is called putting on the “Defense”. How do you use a defense aggressively?

The enforcement of rights, regardless of the means for doing so, is in fact a defensive action. It arises when someone violates your rights and you choose to defend them.

In the case of patents, the initial position is that someone has patent rights, and is entitled to defend those rights against infringing actions. The only way to characterize that as aggression, is to deny the existence of those rights at the outset, in which case, if there cannot be suit to enforce one’s rights, there certainly can’t be a countersuit as a defensive tactic.

If you do not deny the existence of patent rights at the outset, then why would one first seek them, and then not defend them if it was in their financial interest to do so? That seems the equivalent of hanging out a sign that says “Please rob me”.

I am saying that it’s not a simple issue and trying to force the issue into a either/or situation to judge these companies is intellectually dishonest, lazy, and counter productive.

It must be nice for you to make factual claims, while denying that it is possible to do so. Ever heard of the law of identity? Which of us is intellectually dishonest now?

Either these companies use the state to hurt others or they don’t. We can’t judge intent, only action. Action indicates preference.

Note, you did not answer my question. You tried to change the argument. Again, that’s the real intellectual dishonesty. When questioned on your claims, you obfuscate and evade. Which is what people have to do when they get called on their bullshit.

Apple, however, is primarily a direct-consumer company that generates all of its sales in direct customer sales utilizing a B2C model. Apple’s main income sources come from proprietary hardware sales and revenues from their proprietary and closed content delivery systems (iTunes, AppStore, etc). Apple has much more to lose in the absense of IP under their current business model. Whereas Microsoft is already competing with other companies for services for its own products, and winning, Apple is effectively insulted from any serious competition. Because of this competition insulation, Apple is capable of enjoying much higher profit margins, which produces a company that unlikely has a culture of efficiency. They’re fully aware that the iPhone, for instance, is a completely closed system. Nothing goes onto it without the express approval of Apple and through Apple’s delivery method, from which Apple generates a cut of the revenue. Apple has no need to worry about content delivery competition on its platform from places like Cydia because anyone who attempts to use Cydia and the like will have their devices permanently disabled (lest they know how to unlock them, like I had to for the “crime” of using a custom ringtone).

Apple deals primarily in the physical and tangible to the end-consumer. The visual style of the iPhone/iPad/Mac itself, sales of iOS enabled devices, and a gatekeeper attitude over all content entered into their products, of which they get a cut of the sale. If individuals are freely able to obtain the MacOS and place it on their own hardware, Apple can no longer enjoy the gigantic hardware markups they currently enjoy (as you noted, on the order of 100%), especially considering that there is almost nothing proprietary left in an Apple box since they use off the shelf Intel processors and Nvidia graphics cards for laptops and computers, and off the shelf ARM processors for the iPhone/iPad. Consumers could purchase a much less expensive, yet identically featured, “knock-off” of effectively the same quality, obtain an iOS install, and have a cheap yet functionally identical iPhone for much less than the current prices offered. Third parties can offer their own AppStores (like Amazon’s on Android that competes with the Google one) that have lower to no fees for developers, thus attracting a larger developer base and offering less expensive fare. Apple’s revenue stream will defeinitely suffer considering they’re offering a bare-bones experience for the most part. Customers aren’t paying Apple for a unique, only they can offer service, customers are paying fees to use their own devices as intended. Apple doesn’t offer much beyond passive services, and this is the double-edged sword Apple is playing with. Passive services work wonderfully in an IP environment because passive services require little input on Apple’s part. They can just turn it on and let the revenues flow in, confident that no one is legally permitted to copy the service in any way or even let competitors enter their walled garden.

This is why I see Apple as the biggest winner in an IP envrionment and the most likely to be the biggest loser should IP vanish tomorrow when compared to Microsoft. Microsoft generates its revenues primarily on active service offerings and assistance to business customers. Apple produces most of its revenue on protected hardware sales and usage fees. Copying Microsoft’s service expertise is incredibly difficult. Cobbling together your own Mac or iPhone without having to go through Apple is easy.

At least I have the good sense to know I am a conscious schizophrenic. I’m not bullshitting myself that morality exists except when it inconveniences me.

@Sweatervest, stay away from big words. You’re making my argument for me.

Yes, the point of Austrian Economics is to explain why the state controlled economy is good cause for us to expect these miserable things to happen, which clearly spells out the solution to ending those miserable things: get rid of the *state*, not get rid of or punish Microsoft or Apple so that the next corporation can come along and do the exact same thing. It is certainly not the point of Austrian Economics to point the finger at everyone that doesn’t ignore the state or even at those that ask the state for help, since if anyone of us took that seriously we would exile ourselves from society. Is every welfare recipient a thief?

Microsoft “enables” IP laws? What could this even mean? IP has predated Microsoft by a hundred years.

No, corporations do not enable the theft of the state anymore than all of us do by handing over our taxes without a fight.

“and heavily enforces them by calling the state”

No, Microsoft doesn’t enforce anything. They do not have courts or police. Every one of those hearings is a request by Microsoft for the state to fight for them. The state does not take orders from corporations.

“it is NOT the same as a mere consumer”

Please define what being a “mere consumer” is.

Finally, who is making an analogy? It is way too often that people mistake using a categorical form on different true premises to reach false conclusions and thus invalidate the form with making an analogy. I never said any of those things are analogous to anything else. It is the same argumentative form used on different premises and reaching absurd conclusions. That is sufficient to establish the argument as an unsound one.

Where did I switch the definition of a word and continue to use it without noting the changed definition?