>>But if we let any competition take over our invested research, they can simulate the procedures on
>>medication control without investing into the courses, time and effort and the risk of investment.
>
>
>EXACTLY! And therein lies the advantage of sharing, and therein lies the damage of hoarding. And there is nothing to prevent you from moving forward with your discovery once you have it. Many people will go to you exclusively because you have the "hard experience" which it took to get there, whereas others have only the "soft experience" of use. Yours was philosophy. Theirs was adaptation, unless they take the time to convert adaptation into philosophy.
>
>In sharing, the other companies would not have to also go through the years and rigors of discovery to determine the logic, but now they have the ability to use your discovery, and your published software logic, as a new base upon which to append their unique and special talents atop, so as to make the final product more fruitful, more complete, more enhanced, more expanded, than it was originally by your efforts. They would also be contributing back unto your company as well, by the way, so that everyone would gain.
>
>To simplify this example... Suppose I come up with a new design for a blender. I describe it to you as best I can. You receive the information through my words, developing a picture in your mind. Prior experience you possess related to something you built five years ago comes forward and you say, "What if we replaced this component with one which operates like this," and then you describe it. The end result is my verbal conveyance of my best idea (me having thought the matter through) being received, with you being able to contribute and add to it based upon your knowledge and past experience.
>
>In sharing this is possible and all people gain. The final product is better (or has the opportunity to be better -- perhaps you truly are the best in your field).
>
>And in the computer systems example you developed, that which you have discovered would ultimately be less costly because there now exists a wide array of products to choose from, each from different entities, and all people everywhere will pay less at the medical facility because it didn't cost as much to obtain the proprietary knowledge, but rather they obtained the knowledge essentially for free and are now looking to the companies to provide better service to them, which is where the fee comes from (labor).
>
>The ONLY people who would lose out by sharing is you and your team who had the discovery. You would lose out on the opportunity to build a personal empire of wealth, fame, power, all from your proprietary knowledge, and all due to hoarding. But in sharing, you lose out on money, but everybody gains in knowledge, and everybody gains in savings by not having to pay YOU for that proprietary knowledge.
>
>It is not an acceptable tradeoff (the gain from hoarding, versus the gain from sharing). Not in the slightest. Sharing exceeds it exponentially.
>
>Knowledge should be shared. Accomplishments in software should be shared. It is only the labor of the new products, or the adaptation of existing products, that should be paid for. The rest should be entirely, and completely, community property, because that knowledge came from God to be shared. It did not come from God to be hoarded. God is not in the hoarding business. He is in the sharing business. Remember, we are joint-heirs with Christ (Romans 8:17).

You don't seem to believe in capitalism. I'm not talking about "building an empire of wealth, fame, power." I'm talking about just making a living. Where is the incentive to do the hard work of creation when anyone can come along and take your work as their own?