[RE]

Oh please. Anyone here can hire a lawyer

Nonsense.  Any idea how much it costs to get a patent nowadays, particularly with code?  Then to protect it?  You would burn your whole $34K just on legal fees.  If you tried to start something like PayPal without the right connections, you's be jumped on the idea by people with more money so fast the  draft would suck you into the quantum realm.  Same is true of many startups you never heard of because Bill Gates heard about it and locked it up before they could get rolling.
'
Now if you're at Harvard, you're already from the class of people who have lawyers on speed dial and you meet people in this kind of loop.  While I was at Columbia, we had a notoriously bad football team coached by Bill Campbell.  Met Steve Jobs at a party, went to work marketing for Apple.  Jumped from there to be CEO of some software startups.  The guy took a job as a crappy football coach and leveraged himself up to be a zillionaire in IT, not knowing the first thing about computers. He was a heck of a salesman though, and he knew who he had to sell to and how to meet them.

RE

[TDoS]

Oh please. Anyone here can hire a lawyer

Nonsense.  Any idea how much it costs to get a patent nowadays, particularly with code?

Not me. But we were discussing lawyers. If a lawyer wants to know something about code, they hire someone who knows code. Those of us who testify as experts in a subject, or are hired by lawyers to explain to them what they need to know as experts, are well aware of this.

The statement stands. Wheel on down the street to where Anchorage lawyers reside, wave some money at them, and you too can hire a lawyer. If you want to sue in a specific arena, like the quality of your elder-care, they might want to go get themselves a consult with an expert in it.

Then to protect it?  You would burn your whole $34K just on legal fees.  If you tried to start something like PayPal without the right connections, you's be jumped on the idea by people with more money so fast the  draft would suck you into the quantum realm.  Same is true of many startups you never heard of because Bill Gates heard about it and locked it up before they could get rolling.

Good thing Elon apparently hired the right lawyers, or didn't hire any, and was smart enough to dodge these pitfalls, which you seem to characterize as givens.

How much $$ do you have to hire lawyers and their experts for your patent search on childrens toys? Or defend the idea later when someone tries to snake it out from under you? You seemed to think it wouldn't be an issue...but when someone else has already done it, with a measly $32G's, you act like it can't be done.

So which is it? Do you have gazillions to hire lawyers and pay patent experts as you describe, or $32G's stashed away to make it work like Elon did?

[RE]

Whatever.  Not worth the time to debate.

RE

[TDoS]

Whatever.  Not worth the time to debate.
RE

Really? What else do you have to do? They make you sweep up the place, do dishes, cook for the others?

As far as a debate, I didn't think it even reached that far. You seem to prefer the hypothetical or theoretical, whereas I reach for logic, history, the known, personal experience, and the facts involved for specific examples.

No need for the theoretical when you've got those on your side. Does make it difficult for someone on the opposite side though.

[RE]

No, you did your usual logical fallacy of Appeal to Authority which counts for nothing since your supposed expertiese is not in the field of patent law and doesn't apply to this debate.  The debate is a waste of time because we'll never know exactly how Elon got his financing or who the investment bankers, venture capitalists and lawyers involved were or how he met them.  This is all just speculation on both our parts.  The readers can decide for themselves what scenario is most likely to have played out.

RE

[K-Dog]

People are always trying to find a source in an individuals personality or intellect to explain success or failure.  This is naive, material conditions define success, not individual success or failure.

Someone who has a hard-on for existing conditions imagines we live in the best of all possible worlds.  For them attributing success to the individual is a natural urge.  It verifies their bubble of reality.

Personally I am happy not to suffer from this delusion.  Thinking everyone could become a billionaire if they just worked hard enough, and are talented is not a delusion adults should have.  The ghost of math haunts me every time i try and take on a typical American delusion.  Reality must obey algebra.

Individualism taken in broadest terms has consisted mainly of a rejection of the state and impatience with restraints upon economic activity.  It has not tended to set the autonomous individual in rebellion against his social group.  American individualism is mostly just about wanting the government to stay out of the economy, not about meeting everyone's individual needs.  Or wanting everyone to achieve a sense of self-actualization or valuing individual autonomy or anything like that.

[RE]

Very true.  In the case of Muskrat, among the reasons I found the argument tedious that besides the fact it's all just speculation on the details of how he engineered the launch of PayPal to begin his climb up the ladder of filthy rich scumbags, how he did it doesn't justify any of his behavior since, nor does it make him "worthy"  of having the money, power and control over the lives of the 1000s who work for him or the millions devastated fy his actions, from building polluting power plants for his AI supercomputers to eviscerating numerous agencies whose goals were to fund everything from scientific research to education and assisting 3rd world countries exploited by his class of Tech Bro Titans and Robber Barons.

Invariably, the people who find it necessary to justify great wealth and social priviledge are not the people born into great wealth but the nouveau riche, people who successfully climbed the financial and social ladder into the 1% who enjoy the perks of this society.  They justify their own success as being the result of hard work and intelligence and attribute poverty to laziness and stupidity.

Outcomes in life aren't so deterministic.  They are better described by Chaos Theory, resulting from a combination of starting conditions followed by a long series of variables where choices are made, some conscious and others not, some in your control and others not.  Timing and location can radically alter outcomes.  Individual outcomes are impossible to predict, but statistical  outcomes are very predictable and social stratification is easily identified.  I don't need to know how Muskrat made his climb up the ladder because I know the commonalities he has with the rest of the Tech Bros and movers and shakers in the society.  The patterns are all similar.

Our currently incarcerated contrarian was determined to keep hammering his opinions on the reasons Muskrat is so rich despite the fact I made it clear I was not interested in further speculation on this topic.  He chose to keep going on it despite that, so I cut him off and sent him to the cooler.  There he can believe whatever he chooses to.  Everyone else can believe what they want now also and we can move on to more worthwhile discussions.

RE

[K-Dog]

They are better described by Chaos Theory, resulting from a combination of starting conditions followed by a long series of variables where choices are made, some conscious and others not, some in your control and others not.  Timing and location can radically alter outcomes.

True, that.