Are Rich People Unethical?

Post Reply New Topic

Xerox PARC (Palo Alto Research Center Incorporated)...


From Wikipedia-

The Xerox Alto

Most of these developments were included in the Alto, which added the now familiar SRI-developed mouse[5] unifying into a single model most aspects of now-standard personal computer use. The integration of Ethernet prompted the development of the PARC Universal Packet architecture, much like today's Internet.
[edit] The GUI

Xerox has been heavily criticized (particularly by business historians) for failing to properly commercialize and profitably exploit PARC's innovations. A favorite example is the GUI, initially developed at PARC for the Alto and then commercialized as the Xerox Star by the Xerox Systems Development Department. Although very significant in terms of its influence on future system design, it is deemed a failure because it only sold approximately 25,000 units. A small group from PARC led by David Liddle and Charles Irby formed Metaphor Computer Systems. They extended the Star desktop concept into an animated graphic and communicating office-automation model and sold the company to IBM.
[edit] Adoption by Apple

The first successful commercial GUI product was the Apple Macintosh, which was heavily inspired by PARC's work; Xerox was allowed to buy pre-IPO stock from Apple, in exchange for engineer visits and an understanding that Apple would create a GUI product.[6] Much later, in the midst of the 1988-1994 Apple vs. Microsoft lawsuit, in which Apple accused Microsoft of violating its copyright by appropriating the use of the "look and feel" of the Apple Macintosh GUI, Xerox also sued Apple on similar grounds. The Xerox lawsuit was dismissed because the presiding judge dismissed most of Xerox's complaints as being inappropriate for a variety of legal reasons.[7]

I agree.

Did PARC properly patent the idea? If so, did they take legal action for patent infringment. If not, then they implicitly permitted both Jobs and Gates using the idea. No theft here. If PARC did not commercialize a good idea, that was their problem.

Inspired by does not mean stole.

ruveyn

I don't think you can make blanket statements. Some rich people are unethical, just as some ordinary people are unethical. Those would include anyone who knowingly commits white collar or corporate crime, the executives of tobacco companies, those who lobby the government to act in their interest rather than that of society at large etc.

Despite being a socialist, I don't feel that you can say all rich people are unethical. Most would probably feel that they are doing what's right. I disagree with possessing such ridiculously large sums of money (more than you would ever need) and the opulent life-style, but I think that the rich have been socialized not to think about it. They have been socialized not to think about the poor not because they don't care, but simply because they are out of sight and out of mind. They are products of the capitalist system, and it is the system that is to blame for most of their practices that I disapprove of, not the individuals themselves.

The people that worked on the ideas at PARC considered them ripped off. So yes, someone's blood sweat and tears were stolen. No price on that...

He did test it at intersections and with quizes. Seems like there is something to it. The phrase "absolute power corrupts absolutely" probably works on a sliding scale as well.

Some people may get a successful result through hard work and may then become accustomed to a certain result and begin to expect that positive results are their right, whatever it takes.

That's not the point. The point is that it is a moral obligation to help others.

(To be fair, he explains it better in a chapter of his book. Here?)


That's not the point either. That some people of group B will have traits that some people in group A also have is entirely obvious. There are "good people" who are also rich, and "bad people" who are poor. The point is to find whether there are more rich or poor people who act unethical. Bringing up all the Bill Gates in the world is just anecdotic.

(I somewhat disagree about bribes. Government officials alone should be blamed. I don't blame the rich for that.


That, or they justify their behaviour to resolve cognitive dissonances.

Last edited by enrico_dandolo on 28 Feb 2012, 2:43 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Aww, too bad It made a great story. Damn you, internet

True, but the ratio between ethical / compassionate and unethical / ruthless people is probably different among the filthy rich. In order to rise to the top in a merciless capitalist system, you need many or all of the following traits:

• High self-confidence
• Desire for power and wealth
• Glibness and charm
• Cunning
• The ability to manipulate others
• Lack of remorse / guilt
• A low degree of empathy
• A certain amount of arrogance
• Shamelessness
• The ability to lie convincingly

I've just described a successful car salesman, a Wall Street banker, the CEO of a health insurance company, a senator... and a pathological narcissist. The US economy rewards narcissism like few other economic systems. I don't think that's a good idea.

Please know that I think I understand, enrico. I've been there in the past; but I'm not really there now, and I'd rather not get into my past. I tend to be a person of great extremes, but it's not healthy for me. We all have an internet connection and a computer (except those connecting in a library), but these are not necessities for living.

I apologize for taking this thread off topic.

Jobs also had many narcissistic traits. He was a visionary, but also an arrogant control freak with little compassion for working class people.


Source: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/10/2 ... 22786.html

Interestingly, the article also mentions that Jobs used to be a liberal, but turned into a conservative. Which goes to show how profoundly wealth can change people and rob them of empathy and compassion.

Hoax or not, I (and most people who've worked for tips, I'd imagine) have had very similar experiences with rich customers.

Well said. More or less what I would say but turn it around towards socialism.

The short story I can give is. Once the only job I had was a lowly council worker. Probably the least useful in the office. Never got that programming job I wanted. Then I bought a car, out of boardem. I went to a couple of boots sale to buy things to sell on Amazon, then I specialise in books. Now I sell some books for silly money and my income has doubled. I pay taxes that go back into the economy, and create jobs for the career, Amazon FBA centre, accountent, gas station, car maintainance garage .

We often forget that the rich/super rich create wealth when they either spend or save their money. I should know . Just recently I have sold a book about aeroplane seats for £210 pounds to someone who lived in Wimbledon Vellage.

This movie is a great dramatization of rise of Apple and Microsoft.
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5L0IvI00AY4[/youtube]

that the rich always create wealth for others is as big a blanket statement.

i think the deciding factor here is greed, some companies would sell their mothers for profit where others would rather give up profit in favour of a better service or better wages, often though the two are connected.

Bill Gates and Jobs are exceptional people. What effect do you think money has one average people. Do you think it is anything to do with status. As far as quality of living goes. I would consider my life as good as the rich of the 1920s.