Duck Leeks are Poisonous: Professor Kamo's Lecture on Human Economics - Vol. 3 Ch. 15 - "Brainwashing" Lecture
- Thread starter MangaDex
- Start date
Dex-chan lover
- Joined
- Oct 29, 2024
- Messages
- 61
Thank you for translating this.
Active member
- Joined
- Aug 12, 2023
- Messages
- 20
I’m kinda curious what they mean by “it’s not possible”. Surely they’re raking in enough money through their scam that they can afford to invest in or lose 150,000 yen. Or is it that it’s not possible for them to invest in 150,000 yen monthly?
Please elaborate this
Dex-chan lover
- Joined
- Sep 18, 2024
- Messages
- 355
It's that they can't do it on the behalf of all their members per month.
I've had someone try to get me to invest in their sure fire thing before but I'd have to do it regularly for months, they claimed that if I could shift it and it'd be easy as it was sure fire way to make millions. I told them to fuck off, they basically wanted me to be a regular purchaser like a supermarket buying fruit from a farm.
On the other hand, I had a friend who'd made it who noticed I was struggling one time and offered me stocks that paid $2000 in dividends monthly, for free. There in lies the difference.
I refused him, not because I didn't need the money and it would keep me stable but because that was his that he'd earned and I didn't have the knowledge to cut my losses and buy stocks that would keep holding the same value of dividends. I would squander his good will and I sure as fuck didn't want to become someone who asked for more after failing.
Dude just helped me out with groceries and got me wasted. Helped reduce my spending in the moment and let me burn off some stress. His a good person. I'll be drinking with him next Wednesday.
Patents are not a way to just make money. Getting a patent costs money, and you have to pay to keep it active. What patents do is let you sue people who try to duplicate what you did. One way to make money with the help of a patent is to a) come up with something people want to make that you are not going to make yourself, b) obtain a patent on this invention (not easy), then c) wait for someone to try to copy you, threaten to sue them (which is a huge risk to you), and then force them to accept a license agreement with a royalty provision (or successfully sue them, and make some money off of damages). There are also, of course, occasions where inventors pair up with entrepreneurs to start a new business and the inventor is compensated for contributing the invention - but usually the real value there is being a business and development partner, not having a patent.
If you have a patent you're not going to make money just because you have a patent, you have to sell or rent out (license) the right under very specific circumstances. The vast majority of patents do not generate any direct income, and just generate direct costs. The indirect benefit of a patent is being able to maintain exclusivity when you offer your products - but then you're making money from increased margins on your products, not the patent itself.
TLDR - patents typically have a chance to give you increased margins on asset sales or rentals; they typically do not generate income. Saying that a patent means 'every time your invention gets used, money comes in' like Kamo does is a childish way of thinking.
Note - Kamo might be thinking of the old school approach to employees' inventions in Japan, where corporations had to license inventions from their employees and then pay them a royalty as long as the corporation kept making a profit on the products incorporating the invention. This is possible in a few other countries (notably Germany) as well, but it's usually something corporations manage to avoid, instead paying out a one-time compensation. In this case the money is still made by the company selling products, but to an employee this can feel like getting a payout for a 'patent' without having to do anything.
Last edited:
Depending on the things he said in the original text, couldn't it just mean licensing fees when using something like photoshop or other tools?
But then it's not the patents that are generating the money - they're selling software as a service, and you're paying a subscription fee for the service, software, and support / development. Even when you buy standalone software you're paying for a license to copyrighted code; the patents help support exclusivity (much like DRM does on a more individual scale) but it's not a question of a patent leading to people having to pay you whenever they use the invention. Almost the opposite - the patent just makes it illegal for others to use your invention.
Last edited:
