Your assumptions are so fact-free that my mind boggles.
How do Monsanto's "innovations" benefit farmers? They benefit Monsanto. Period. End of story. They benefit Monsanto so much that people rose up in arms over the Terminator gene that Monsanto wanted to put in all its seeds. It could have ended life as we know it, but it would have been good for Monsanto.
And tell me more about those profits that farmers make. The saying around here (rural Iowa) is that the crop pays the bills and the government check is the profit. Every time something happens that increases farmers income, their suppliers and buyers (middlemen) take a bigger cut. They leave enough to keep farmers in business, because they don't want to have to take the risk of actually farming themselves. But even that is changing.
Farmers do not control their own markets. They do not set the price for their crops. They can only take what is offered. It is the age-old problem with farming. You have to guess which way the market is going at least a year (or more) before you start raising the crop. What other industry operates under those conditions?
The bottom line is that Monsanto doesn't take any of the risk of planting seeds that they sell. They don't stand to lose money on a crop failure of those seeds. They don't have to worry about a market glut. They don't have to plant, cultivate, harvest, store or transport that crop. But they still want to own something that is not theirs. It's like Microsoft wanting to own everything that you produce in Word or Windows... Oh, wait, they already do that! Never mind. Want to ever see your data safe and sound again? Pay for your OS/application again. They will lock it up just as quick as Monsanto will lock up seeds. Forever.
Or maybe it's like buying a movie and wanting to watch it on your TV or on your laptop... Oh, wait! The MPAA already sues people for doing that! Never mind!
It's all part of the great public domain land grab, and Monsanto, Microsoft, **AA is the villain,. Wise up and smell the coffee. Monsanto did not invent DNA.
There is a principle involved that tells me that pure pleasure always has a downside for someone. It is that pleasure is basically self-centered. It is part of the definition for me.
If pleasure is the only goal of an activity, it is self-centered. Obviously, a couple having intercourse give each other pleasure, but they are also being other-centered and building intimacy with each other. I acknowledge that it is not always the case. But sex causes intimacy, and when intimacy is rejected, it causes harm.
There are other forms of pleasure which are more obviously self-centered that shouldn't need explanation. But even if I am by myself having a good time, telling myself that I am not hurting anybody, I am not telling the truth. Someone is missing my company, my talents, my potential. Something is not getting done because I am sunk in pure pleasure. Some path is not being realized because I am absent.
Pleasure is a very nice side benefit. It doesn't make a very good prime motive.
One problem with measuring happiness is that there is no commonly agreed on definition.
The worse problem is that many people think that happiness equates with pleasure. Wrong metric. Pleasure always has a downside for someone. Happiness does not affect anyone negatively - except me when I first wake up.
We fixate on the pursuit of happiness because it was one phrase in our country's history. I would suggest that a better metric to use would be social justice - a broad spectrum social justice, not just one or two special interests, a social justice metric that affects EVERYONE.
If you can ignore the source and take a look at the issues, I can point out a few examples. You may have your own examples that I don't know about. These are the ones that I am familiar with. I have no desire to start a flame war here. Translate as needed. End Disclaimer.
Part of the Catechism sets the foundation for WHY social justice is important to a properly functioning society.
I. Respect for the Human Person
1929 Social justice can be obtained only in respecting the transcendent dignity of man. The person represents the ultimate end of society, which is ordered to him:
What is at stake is the dignity of the human person, whose defense and promotion have been entrusted to us by the Creator, and to whom the men and women at every moment of history are strictly and responsibly in debt.
1930 Respect for the human person entails respect for the rights that flow from his dignity as a creature. These rights are prior to society and must be recognized by it. They are the basis of the moral legitimacy of every authority: by flouting them, or refusing to recognize them in its positive legislation, a society undermines its own moral legitimacy. If it does not respect them, authority can rely only on force or violence to obtain obedience from its subjects. It is the Church’s role to remind men of good will of these rights and to distinguish them from unwarranted or false claims.
1931 Respect for the human person proceeds by way of respect for the principle that “everyone should look upon his neighbor (without any exception) as ‘another self,’ above all bearing in mind his life and the means necessary for living it with dignity.” No legislation could by itself do away with the fears, prejudices, and attitudes of pride and selfishness which obstruct the establishment of truly fraternal societies. Such behavior will cease only through the charity that finds in every man a “neighbor,” a brother.
1932 The duty of making oneself a neighbor to others and actively serving them becomes even more urgent when it involves the disadvantaged, in whatever area this may be. “As you did it to one of the least of these my brethren, you did it to me.”
1933 This same duty extends to those who think or act differently from us. The teaching of Christ goes so far as to require the forgiveness of offenses. He extends the commandment of love, which is that of the New Law, to all enemies. Liberation in the spirit of the Gospel is incompatible with hatred of one’s enemy as a person, but not with hatred of the evil that he does as an enemy.
1940 Solidarity is manifested in the first place by the distribution of goods and remuneration for work. It also presupposes the effort for a more just social order where tensions are better able to be reduced and conflicts more readily settled by negotiation.
1941 Socio-economic problems can be resolved only with the help of all the forms of solidarity: solidarity of the poor among themselves, between rich and poor, of workers among themselves, between employers and employees in a business, solidarity among nations and peoples. International solidarity is a requirement of the moral order; world peace depends in part upon this.
1942 The virtue of solidarity goes beyond material goods. In spreading the spiritual goods of the faith, the Church has promoted, and often opened new paths for, the development of temporal goods as well. And so throughout the centuries has the Lord’s saying been verified: “Seek first his kingdom and his righteousness, and all these things shall be yours as well”:
For two thousand years this sentiment has lived and endured in the soul of the Church, impelling souls then and now to the heroic charity of monastic farmers, liberators of slaves, healers of the sick, and messengers of faith, civilization, and science to all generations and all peoples for the sake of creating the social conditions capable of offering to everyone possible a life worthy of man and of a Christian.
Because. Bread and circuses are still more important than social justice and a fair, distributed economy.
We NEED more Beelionnaires!
Same thing goes for any part of the economy that touches entertainment - RIAA, MPAA, print publishing, news services, Artists Guild, Metallica, Microsoft (slapstick), Oracle (yacht races), The SCO Group (more slapstick)........
But OXO has one fatal flaw. They can't manufacture products without defects. I stopped buying OXO years ago after several pieces of kitchen utensils developed loose handles. That doesn't sound too bad until you try cooking something and soapy water dribbles out of the handle into your food.
American manufacturing used to deliver products that were excellent from start to finish - from concept to packaging. We need to relearn those skills because the quarterly stock price driven attitudes at modern companies are killing our economy.
One exception that comes to mind - this is my first post anywhere written on a tablet - a Google/ASUS Nexus 7.
Because even if the contractor does a bad job (like the one who started demolishing my chimney from the bottom up) you have to give them a chance to correct the problem. You can't fire them and hire someone else who MAY be competent. You can't withhold payment for work that wasn't done right. You have to let them mess up AGAIN! That's what the law says.
And for the person who claims that contractors have to put up with people who complain after the contractor did what was asked for - I have NEVER had a contractor do what I asked for. Not as a private home owner, not as a Data Center Manager, not as a project manager for large corporations. Contractors do one thing one way and that is how they make their money. It takes time to figure out something different. Doing something different costs them money. It ain't gonna happen.
They didn't have to investigate Microsoft and risk the ire of the richest man in the world. They know where the real power lies.
Now, if I could just buy a brand-name computer with the Linux distro of my choice without having to know the double-top-secret password to get at them, I would be a happy man. The last new computer that I bought was an HP business model back before Carly merged them with DEC/Compaq. I've been living on cast-offs from a recycler, Midwest Computer Brokers in Walford, Iowa (mcbia.com) since then - and before then, come to think of it.
If you're not paying, the money is coming from somewhere
I agree that this is not linked to QOS, but it is probably too simplified.
TANSTAAFL still applies.
The money may come from me, from advertisers, from reselling my personal information, from charitable donations, from community effort, or any number of things. None of these are linked rigorously to QOS. All the permutations apply.
But when I get something for "free", and the service provider is reselling my personal information, then I am indeed the product. When they keep changing the rules and denying me access to what they are doing with my personal information (a double standard), then I am indeed the product, and I have a HUGE problem with that. Others don't. Good for them.
You picks your horses and you takes your chances. Me - I'm not a gambler.
As I recall from being on corporate teams, the team is made up of individuals, not corporations. It is common to have several names on a patent. The trouble is that the patent is then owned by the corporation as directed by those papers that you had to sign if you wanted to get a paycheck for your work.
On November 23, the Des Moines Register had a front page article entitled The Push for Patents, subtitled "Royalties Cushion Budget Cuts". And we here in Iowa know that when you elect Terry Branstad, that budget cuts are coming to EVERYONE!
So it is a timely and relevant article here in Iowa, and I'm sure the natives took notice, although I was incommunicado for the next 7 days. Here's a summary.
The University of Iowa took a $37 million dollar cut in royalties from patents from 2009 to 2011, from $43 to $6 million due to one expired drug patent based on the cytomegalovirus promoter. [Note: I have no idea what I just typed.]
The U of Minnesota dropped $75 million in royalties over the same period. An expired anti-AIDS drug accounted for $10 million of that loss last year. Northwestern leads the nation with $191 million in royalties in 2011, mostly from Lyrica, an anti-seizure drug that is also being used for fibromyalgia.
It also notes that patent royalty income to universities increased 4% each year from 2009, so the losers lose big when a popular patent expires.
... and they still haven't gotten my message, so I guess those people are right. Although I do see TVs on when I walk through rooms where others are watching TV. I have watched as much as 5-10 minutes of TV at a time, realized that it hasn't gotten any better, and left.
Let's compare this to another market. Let's say I am a farmer who wants to sell food to people. People like my food so much that some of them start buying their own seeds and growing their own food. I lose sales. Are they pirates? No, they just like the extra advantages they get when they grow their own food. They get fresher food. It takes time to get food from my farm to their table. They get more flavorful food. I have to pick fruit before it is ripe, and let it ripen on the way. Otherwise it gets bruised and rotten and nobody wants to buy it. Also it makes a terrible impression on people about my food's quality. They might even be making a "green" statement.
I can either improve my food, improve my processes, or adapt my business model to help people get what they want. I can start focusing on markets closer to my farm, provide special packaging for riper fruit, set up subscription models for "greener" operations, and so on.
Or I could create seed that doesn't grow true, using hybrids and genetic engineering. Or I could create a Terminator gene to stop those pirates from growing their own food... Wait, that's already happened, hasn't it?