What is "Unfettered Capitalism"?

[Wry Catcher]

I never made those claims. Go post it up.

Right here:

There's no such thing as a free market.

Don't blame me for your own statements amounting to stupidity, leading to getting yourself called out. Get informed and come back when you're smarter.

Go fuck yourself you smug prick. What I said is true, you can't twist it into whatever you want. No market is totally free, that's anarchy and exists no where except a Mad Max movie. I made that point clear since day one.

Dumb fuck!

Wow, your signature to this post is so perfect, nice job Mr. Dumb Fuck.

 

[Flopper]

Pure capitalism does not take into account government's responsibilities making it a theoretical construct that's unworkable in the real world. Pure capitalism is just another Utopian idea which is no more practical than pure socialism.

Pure capitalism depends on government's responsibility to maintain and enforce property law. So it very much takes that 'into account'. But it does reject government's authority to dictate our economic decisions. Is that what you're referring to?

No, I'm referring to our government's responsibility to keep our free markets free of corruption and protection of the health and safety of the public; specifically full disclosure of investor information so it's available to not just to the wealthy and power but all Americans, banking regulations that guarantee the safety of deposits, product regulations particularly health and safety that insure that the food we eat and our medicines are safe, and protection of our most precious resources, the air we breath and water we drink.

Well, you're wrapping up quite a bit there. Transparency in trade is important, and I'd agree the state has a responsibility to punish fraud. But "safety" is dubiously subjective. "Protecting" people from their own willingness to accept risk isn't a coherent concept. If I'm willing to drink raw milk, or try out drugs that haven't yet been approved by government, why shouldn't I be allowed to do that?

To be blunt, I simply don't buy the idea that government is there to protect us from our own ignorance. That's rationalizing tyranny.

Imagine an American in which people were wary of putting their money in banks or putting their retirement savings in the hands of financial institutions, an America in which businesses were free to use any tactic to sell their products with no fear of government intervention. That's not an America where I would want to live.

I have no problem with taking risks in business or investing as long I'm not playing with a stacked deck. However, when it comes to the health and safety of my family, I'm not a risk taker and I doubt many other Americans are.

OK, let's play.
Let's say you had an America where people didnt want to put money in banks. What would banks do? Sit there and go out of business from lack of funds?
Or would they respond by advertising how solid they were? Because this was the situation prior to FDR. There was no insurance. Banks and their directors were responsible for depositors' money. One bank went so far as to have physical gold in sufficient quantity to cover depositors' funds. They displayed it in the lobby.
The problem with libs is they think without government programs people would just sit on the curb and wait to die.

Advertising??
There is no reason to think that banks and other financial institutions wouldn't do what they have done in the past without regulation, push their reserves lower and lower and take added risks in pursuit of profits until a break in the economy pushed them tumbling down destroying public and investor confidence. A pure capitalist economy would be a boom and bust economy, an economy in which long term growth would be impossible because long term growth requires long term business planning which is impossible without economy stability.

What those that argue for a pure capitalist economy ignore is that government will always do more than protect property. Capitalist would pressure government to intervene in business matters, possibly over unfair trade practices from abroad or strikes disrupting the economy. There would always be reasons for powerful businesses to corrupt government and pure capitalism would become pure fantasy.

 

[The Rabbi]

You dont know what you're talking about. Youv'e never been in business. You never ran anything but your keyboard on this website.

What part of "unfettered" don't you understand?

All of it. That's why I posed the question in the OP, idiot.
What part of capitalism DO you understand? None of it.

You obviously don't appreciate my example of free enterprise. What part of unfettered capitalism and survival of the fittest don't you support?

Turning liberal on us?

unfettered

If you describe something as unfettered, you mean that it is not controlled or limited by anyone or anything.
FORMAL adj ADJ n, v-link ADJ, ADJ after v
...unfettered free trade..., Unfettered by the bounds of reality, my imagination flourished., ...city slums, where drug traffickers reign virtually unfettered.

There was no "example of free enterprise." There was a fantasy created by someone who doesnt have a clue.

What in what I posted is not an example of unfettered capitalism?

Just a business acting in its own best interests

It was total fantasy. Like most of your life.

 

[rightwinger]

Unfettered Capitalism

You own a small business and develop a new gizmo that exceeds all gizmos in existence
Your main competitor is a Mega Corporation that offers you twenty five percent of what your gizmo is worth. When you refuse, they go to your suppliers and tell them that if they provide you with the critical resources you need to build your gizmo, they can no longer do business with Mega Corporation

You eventually go out of business and Mega Corporation takes your design for next to nothing

Unfettered Capitalism at its finest

Any supplier that does business with you will become fabulously successful, so why do you think they would all go along with some corporate attempt to bully them? How would this corporation even know who your customers are? Customer lists are corporate secretes. You would no that if you every developed Business Intelligence software.

Your scenario occurs only in leftwing La-La land. Many people have developed "gizmos" that exceed all gizmos in existence and made fortunes off of them. The telephone is one example.

Because you are still a small business struggling to survive. The suppliers see the writing on the wall and choose the side with the most business to give

Many companies have developed superior gizmos only to be driven out of business by corporations with more clout and better lawyers
Unfettered capitalism at its best

 

[percysunshine]

.
"What is "Unfettered Capitalism"?"

It is kind of a grey area, but there are likely scantily clad couch dancers involved.

.

 

[The Rabbi]

Pure capitalism depends on government's responsibility to maintain and enforce property law. So it very much takes that 'into account'. But it does reject government's authority to dictate our economic decisions. Is that what you're referring to?

No, I'm referring to our government's responsibility to keep our free markets free of corruption and protection of the health and safety of the public; specifically full disclosure of investor information so it's available to not just to the wealthy and power but all Americans, banking regulations that guarantee the safety of deposits, product regulations particularly health and safety that insure that the food we eat and our medicines are safe, and protection of our most precious resources, the air we breath and water we drink.

Well, you're wrapping up quite a bit there. Transparency in trade is important, and I'd agree the state has a responsibility to punish fraud. But "safety" is dubiously subjective. "Protecting" people from their own willingness to accept risk isn't a coherent concept. If I'm willing to drink raw milk, or try out drugs that haven't yet been approved by government, why shouldn't I be allowed to do that?

To be blunt, I simply don't buy the idea that government is there to protect us from our own ignorance. That's rationalizing tyranny.

Imagine an American in which people were wary of putting their money in banks or putting their retirement savings in the hands of financial institutions, an America in which businesses were free to use any tactic to sell their products with no fear of government intervention. That's not an America where I would want to live.

I have no problem with taking risks in business or investing as long I'm not playing with a stacked deck. However, when it comes to the health and safety of my family, I'm not a risk taker and I doubt many other Americans are.

OK, let's play.
Let's say you had an America where people didnt want to put money in banks. What would banks do? Sit there and go out of business from lack of funds?
Or would they respond by advertising how solid they were? Because this was the situation prior to FDR. There was no insurance. Banks and their directors were responsible for depositors' money. One bank went so far as to have physical gold in sufficient quantity to cover depositors' funds. They displayed it in the lobby.
The problem with libs is they think without government programs people would just sit on the curb and wait to die.

Advertising??
There is no reason to think that banks and other financial institutions wouldn't do what they have done in the past without regulation, push their reserves lower and lower and take added risks in pursuit of profits until a break in the economy pushed them tumbling down destroying public and investor confidence. A pure capitalist economy would be a boom and bust economy, an economy in which long term growth would be impossible because long term growth requires long term business planning which is impossible without economy stability.

What those that argue for a pure capitalist economy ignore is that government will always do more than protect property. Capitalist would pressure government to intervene in business matters, possibly over unfair trade practices from abroad or strikes disrupting the economy. There would always be reasons for powerful businesses to corrupt government and pure capitalism would become pure fantasy.

But they did not do those things in the past. They started doing it when gov't insured deposits and relieved them of the burden of being responsible.
People in business are always rent-seeking and trying other ways to keep out competition and make their products immune. Fuck them.

 

[The Rabbi]

Unfettered Capitalism

You own a small business and develop a new gizmo that exceeds all gizmos in existence
Your main competitor is a Mega Corporation that offers you twenty five percent of what your gizmo is worth. When you refuse, they go to your suppliers and tell them that if they provide you with the critical resources you need to build your gizmo, they can no longer do business with Mega Corporation

You eventually go out of business and Mega Corporation takes your design for next to nothing

Unfettered Capitalism at its finest

Any supplier that does business with you will become fabulously successful, so why do you think they would all go along with some corporate attempt to bully them? How would this corporation even know who your customers are? Customer lists are corporate secretes. You would no that if you every developed Business Intelligence software.

Your scenario occurs only in leftwing La-La land. Many people have developed "gizmos" that exceed all gizmos in existence and made fortunes off of them. The telephone is one example.

Because you are still a small business struggling to survive. The suppliers see the writing on the wall and choose the side with the most business to give

Many companies have developed superior gizmos only to be driven out of business by corporations with more clout and better lawyers
Unfettered capitalism at its best

No, they see where they can make the most money.
As usual your post is a pathetic failure.

 

[bripat9643]

Unfettered Capitalism

You own a small business and develop a new gizmo that exceeds all gizmos in existence
Your main competitor is a Mega Corporation that offers you twenty five percent of what your gizmo is worth. When you refuse, they go to your suppliers and tell them that if they provide you with the critical resources you need to build your gizmo, they can no longer do business with Mega Corporation

You eventually go out of business and Mega Corporation takes your design for next to nothing

Unfettered Capitalism at its finest

Any supplier that does business with you will become fabulously successful, so why do you think they would all go along with some corporate attempt to bully them? How would this corporation even know who your customers are? Customer lists are corporate secretes. You would no that if you every developed Business Intelligence software.

Your scenario occurs only in leftwing La-La land. Many people have developed "gizmos" that exceed all gizmos in existence and made fortunes off of them. The telephone is one example.

Because you are still a small business struggling to survive. The suppliers see the writing on the wall and choose the side with the most business to give

The smart suppliers see a gold mine. There is no "writing on the wall," moron. You scenario has never happened in the history of capitalism. What makes you think it's plausible?

Many companies have developed superior gizmos only to be driven out of business by corporations with more clout and better lawyers
Unfettered capitalism at its best

Wrong, moron. No company with superior technology has ever been lawyered out of business.

 

[The Rabbi]

Unfettered Capitalism

You own a small business and develop a new gizmo that exceeds all gizmos in existence
Your main competitor is a Mega Corporation that offers you twenty five percent of what your gizmo is worth. When you refuse, they go to your suppliers and tell them that if they provide you with the critical resources you need to build your gizmo, they can no longer do business with Mega Corporation

You eventually go out of business and Mega Corporation takes your design for next to nothing

Unfettered Capitalism at its finest

Any supplier that does business with you will become fabulously successful, so why do you think they would all go along with some corporate attempt to bully them? How would this corporation even know who your customers are? Customer lists are corporate secretes. You would no that if you every developed Business Intelligence software.

Your scenario occurs only in leftwing La-La land. Many people have developed "gizmos" that exceed all gizmos in existence and made fortunes off of them. The telephone is one example.

Because you are still a small business struggling to survive. The suppliers see the writing on the wall and choose the side with the most business to give

The smart suppliers see a gold mine. There is no "writing on the wall," moron. You scenario has never happened in the history of capitalism. What makes you think it's plausible?

Many companies have developed superior gizmos only to be driven out of business by corporations with more clout and better lawyers
Unfettered capitalism at its best

Wrong, moron. No company with superior technology has ever been lawyered out of business.

You'll have to excuse Rightwinger. He's the victim of his own mind.
Of course what he writes has never happened and could never happen. Except in a crony capitalist state, which is what he wants.

 

[rightwinger]

Unfettered Capitalism

You own a small business and develop a new gizmo that exceeds all gizmos in existence
Your main competitor is a Mega Corporation that offers you twenty five percent of what your gizmo is worth. When you refuse, they go to your suppliers and tell them that if they provide you with the critical resources you need to build your gizmo, they can no longer do business with Mega Corporation

You eventually go out of business and Mega Corporation takes your design for next to nothing

Unfettered Capitalism at its finest

Any supplier that does business with you will become fabulously successful, so why do you think they would all go along with some corporate attempt to bully them? How would this corporation even know who your customers are? Customer lists are corporate secretes. You would no that if you every developed Business Intelligence software.

Your scenario occurs only in leftwing La-La land. Many people have developed "gizmos" that exceed all gizmos in existence and made fortunes off of them. The telephone is one example.

Because you are still a small business struggling to survive. The suppliers see the writing on the wall and choose the side with the most business to give

The smart suppliers see a gold mine. There is no "writing on the wall," moron. You scenario has never happened in the history of capitalism. What makes you think it's plausible?

Many companies have developed superior gizmos only to be driven out of business by corporations with more clout and better lawyers
Unfettered capitalism at its best

Wrong, moron. No company with superior technology has ever been lawyered out of business.

The gold mine is the Mega Corporation who can give you large amounts of business in a variety of areas. My scenario has happened and much, much worse.
Look up Philo Farnesworth and Nikola Tesla among others
Look at small companies eaten up by Microsoft as they were denied access to the market

 

[bripat9643]

Unfettered Capitalism

You own a small business and develop a new gizmo that exceeds all gizmos in existence
Your main competitor is a Mega Corporation that offers you twenty five percent of what your gizmo is worth. When you refuse, they go to your suppliers and tell them that if they provide you with the critical resources you need to build your gizmo, they can no longer do business with Mega Corporation

You eventually go out of business and Mega Corporation takes your design for next to nothing

Unfettered Capitalism at its finest

Any supplier that does business with you will become fabulously successful, so why do you think they would all go along with some corporate attempt to bully them? How would this corporation even know who your customers are? Customer lists are corporate secretes. You would no that if you every developed Business Intelligence software.

Your scenario occurs only in leftwing La-La land. Many people have developed "gizmos" that exceed all gizmos in existence and made fortunes off of them. The telephone is one example.

Because you are still a small business struggling to survive. The suppliers see the writing on the wall and choose the side with the most business to give

The smart suppliers see a gold mine. There is no "writing on the wall," moron. You scenario has never happened in the history of capitalism. What makes you think it's plausible?

Many companies have developed superior gizmos only to be driven out of business by corporations with more clout and better lawyers
Unfettered capitalism at its best

Wrong, moron. No company with superior technology has ever been lawyered out of business.

The gold mine is the Mega Corporation who can give you large amounts of business in a variety of areas. My scenario has happened and much, much worse.
Look up Philo Farnesworth and Nikola Tesla among others
Look at small companies eaten up by Microsoft as they were denied access to the market

Farnsworth isn't an example of what you claim. Neither is Tesla:

Philo Farnsworth - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia​

In 1938, Farnsworth established the Farnsworth Television and Radio Corporation in Fort Wayne, Indiana, with E. A. Nicholas as president and himself as director of research.[6] In September 1939, after a more than decade-long legal battle, RCA finally conceded to a multi-year licensing agreement concerning Farnsworth's 1927 patent for television totaling $1 million. RCA was then free, after showcasing electronic television at New York World's Fair on April 20, 1939, to sell electronic television cameras to the public.[6][27]​

 

[rightwinger]

Unfettered Capitalism

You own a small business and develop a new gizmo that exceeds all gizmos in existence
Your main competitor is a Mega Corporation that offers you twenty five percent of what your gizmo is worth. When you refuse, they go to your suppliers and tell them that if they provide you with the critical resources you need to build your gizmo, they can no longer do business with Mega Corporation

You eventually go out of business and Mega Corporation takes your design for next to nothing

Unfettered Capitalism at its finest

Any supplier that does business with you will become fabulously successful, so why do you think they would all go along with some corporate attempt to bully them? How would this corporation even know who your customers are? Customer lists are corporate secretes. You would no that if you every developed Business Intelligence software.

Your scenario occurs only in leftwing La-La land. Many people have developed "gizmos" that exceed all gizmos in existence and made fortunes off of them. The telephone is one example.

Because you are still a small business struggling to survive. The suppliers see the writing on the wall and choose the side with the most business to give

The smart suppliers see a gold mine. There is no "writing on the wall," moron. You scenario has never happened in the history of capitalism. What makes you think it's plausible?

Many companies have developed superior gizmos only to be driven out of business by corporations with more clout and better lawyers
Unfettered capitalism at its best

Wrong, moron. No company with superior technology has ever been lawyered out of business.

The gold mine is the Mega Corporation who can give you large amounts of business in a variety of areas. My scenario has happened and much, much worse.
Look up Philo Farnesworth and Nikola Tesla among others
Look at small companies eaten up by Microsoft as they were denied access to the market

Farnsworth isn't an example of what you claim. Neither is Tesla:

Philo Farnsworth - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia​

In 1938, Farnsworth established the Farnsworth Television and Radio Corporation in Fort Wayne, Indiana, with E. A. Nicholas as president and himself as director of research.[6] In September 1939, after a more than decade-long legal battle, RCA finally conceded to a multi-year licensing agreement concerning Farnsworth's 1927 patent for television totaling $1 million. RCA was then free, after showcasing electronic television at New York World's Fair on April 20, 1939, to sell electronic television cameras to the public.[6][27]​

How much money did Sarnoff and RCA make off of TV?





.

 

[bripat9643]

Any supplier that does business with you will become fabulously successful, so why do you think they would all go along with some corporate attempt to bully them? How would this corporation even know who your customers are? Customer lists are corporate secretes. You would no that if you every developed Business Intelligence software.

Your scenario occurs only in leftwing La-La land. Many people have developed "gizmos" that exceed all gizmos in existence and made fortunes off of them. The telephone is one example.

Because you are still a small business struggling to survive. The suppliers see the writing on the wall and choose the side with the most business to give

The smart suppliers see a gold mine. There is no "writing on the wall," moron. You scenario has never happened in the history of capitalism. What makes you think it's plausible?

Many companies have developed superior gizmos only to be driven out of business by corporations with more clout and better lawyers
Unfettered capitalism at its best

Wrong, moron. No company with superior technology has ever been lawyered out of business.

The gold mine is the Mega Corporation who can give you large amounts of business in a variety of areas. My scenario has happened and much, much worse.
Look up Philo Farnesworth and Nikola Tesla among others
Look at small companies eaten up by Microsoft as they were denied access to the market

Farnsworth isn't an example of what you claim. Neither is Tesla:

Philo Farnsworth - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia​

In 1938, Farnsworth established the Farnsworth Television and Radio Corporation in Fort Wayne, Indiana, with E. A. Nicholas as president and himself as director of research.[6] In September 1939, after a more than decade-long legal battle, RCA finally conceded to a multi-year licensing agreement concerning Farnsworth's 1927 patent for television totaling $1 million. RCA was then free, after showcasing electronic television at New York World's Fair on April 20, 1939, to sell electronic television cameras to the public.[6][27]​

How much money did Sarnoff and RCA make off of TV?

Farnsworth sold the patent rights to them. What difference does it make how much money they made off of it?

 

[Contumacious]

Unfettered Capitalism

You own a small business and develop a new gizmo that exceeds all gizmos in existence
Your main competitor is a Mega Corporation that offers you twenty five percent of what your gizmo is worth. When you refuse, they go to your suppliers and tell them that if they provide you with the critical resources you need to build your gizmo, they can no longer do business with Mega Corporation

You eventually go out of business and Mega Corporation takes your design for next to nothing

Unfettered Capitalism at its finest

UNFETTERED SOCIALISM VENEZUELAN STYLE

EMPTY SUPERMARKET SHELVES

PARADISE COMRADE BERNARD SANDERS STYLE

 

[rightwinger]

Because you are still a small business struggling to survive. The suppliers see the writing on the wall and choose the side with the most business to give

The smart suppliers see a gold mine. There is no "writing on the wall," moron. You scenario has never happened in the history of capitalism. What makes you think it's plausible?

Many companies have developed superior gizmos only to be driven out of business by corporations with more clout and better lawyers
Unfettered capitalism at its best

Wrong, moron. No company with superior technology has ever been lawyered out of business.

The gold mine is the Mega Corporation who can give you large amounts of business in a variety of areas. My scenario has happened and much, much worse.
Look up Philo Farnesworth and Nikola Tesla among others
Look at small companies eaten up by Microsoft as they were denied access to the market

Farnsworth isn't an example of what you claim. Neither is Tesla:

Philo Farnsworth - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia​

In 1938, Farnsworth established the Farnsworth Television and Radio Corporation in Fort Wayne, Indiana, with E. A. Nicholas as president and himself as director of research.[6] In September 1939, after a more than decade-long legal battle, RCA finally conceded to a multi-year licensing agreement concerning Farnsworth's 1927 patent for television totaling $1 million. RCA was then free, after showcasing electronic television at New York World's Fair on April 20, 1939, to sell electronic television cameras to the public.[6][27]​

How much money did Sarnoff and RCA make off of TV?

Farnsworth sold the patent rights to them. What difference does it make how much money they made off of it?

Being tied up in court for years can do that

 

[percysunshine]

Unfettered Capitalism

You own a small business and develop a new gizmo that exceeds all gizmos in existence
Your main competitor is a Mega Corporation that offers you twenty five percent of what your gizmo is worth. When you refuse, they go to your suppliers and tell them that if they provide you with the critical resources you need to build your gizmo, they can no longer do business with Mega Corporation

You eventually go out of business and Mega Corporation takes your design for next to nothing

Unfettered Capitalism at its finest

Any supplier that does business with you will become fabulously successful, so why do you think they would all go along with some corporate attempt to bully them? How would this corporation even know who your customers are? Customer lists are corporate secretes. You would no that if you every developed Business Intelligence software.

Your scenario occurs only in leftwing La-La land. Many people have developed "gizmos" that exceed all gizmos in existence and made fortunes off of them. The telephone is one example.

Because you are still a small business struggling to survive. The suppliers see the writing on the wall and choose the side with the most business to give

The smart suppliers see a gold mine. There is no "writing on the wall," moron. You scenario has never happened in the history of capitalism. What makes you think it's plausible?

Many companies have developed superior gizmos only to be driven out of business by corporations with more clout and better lawyers
Unfettered capitalism at its best

Wrong, moron. No company with superior technology has ever been lawyered out of business.

The gold mine is the Mega Corporation who can give you large amounts of business in a variety of areas. My scenario has happened and much, much worse.
Look up Philo Farnesworth and Nikola Tesla among others
Look at small companies eaten up by Microsoft as they were denied access to the market

.
And there is always the example of Solyndra.

.

 

[rightwinger]

Unfettered Capitalism

You own a small business and develop a new gizmo that exceeds all gizmos in existence
Your main competitor is a Mega Corporation that offers you twenty five percent of what your gizmo is worth. When you refuse, they go to your suppliers and tell them that if they provide you with the critical resources you need to build your gizmo, they can no longer do business with Mega Corporation

You eventually go out of business and Mega Corporation takes your design for next to nothing

Unfettered Capitalism at its finest

Any supplier that does business with you will become fabulously successful, so why do you think they would all go along with some corporate attempt to bully them? How would this corporation even know who your customers are? Customer lists are corporate secretes. You would no that if you every developed Business Intelligence software.

Your scenario occurs only in leftwing La-La land. Many people have developed "gizmos" that exceed all gizmos in existence and made fortunes off of them. The telephone is one example.

Because you are still a small business struggling to survive. The suppliers see the writing on the wall and choose the side with the most business to give

The smart suppliers see a gold mine. There is no "writing on the wall," moron. You scenario has never happened in the history of capitalism. What makes you think it's plausible?

Many companies have developed superior gizmos only to be driven out of business by corporations with more clout and better lawyers
Unfettered capitalism at its best

Wrong, moron. No company with superior technology has ever been lawyered out of business.

The gold mine is the Mega Corporation who can give you large amounts of business in a variety of areas. My scenario has happened and much, much worse.
Look up Philo Farnesworth and Nikola Tesla among others
Look at small companies eaten up by Microsoft as they were denied access to the market

.
And there is always the example of Solyndra.

.

Explain the example

 

[Iceweasel]

Go fuck yourself you smug prick.....Dumb fuck!

Game, set, match.

If proving you are a dumb asshole, it's game over.

 

[Iceweasel]

I never made those claims. Go post it up.

Right here:

There's no such thing as a free market.

Don't blame me for your own statements amounting to stupidity, leading to getting yourself called out. Get informed and come back when you're smarter.

Go fuck yourself you smug prick. What I said is true, you can't twist it into whatever you want. No market is totally free, that's anarchy and exists no where except a Mad Max movie. I made that point clear since day one.

Dumb fuck!

Wow, your signature to this post is so perfect, nice job Mr. Dumb Fuck.

My signature is the same in every post, asshole. I made the same point since day one, you two go do what you do best.

 

[bripat9643]

The smart suppliers see a gold mine. There is no "writing on the wall," moron. You scenario has never happened in the history of capitalism. What makes you think it's plausible?

Wrong, moron. No company with superior technology has ever been lawyered out of business.

The gold mine is the Mega Corporation who can give you large amounts of business in a variety of areas. My scenario has happened and much, much worse.
Look up Philo Farnesworth and Nikola Tesla among others
Look at small companies eaten up by Microsoft as they were denied access to the market

Farnsworth isn't an example of what you claim. Neither is Tesla:

Philo Farnsworth - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia​

In 1938, Farnsworth established the Farnsworth Television and Radio Corporation in Fort Wayne, Indiana, with E. A. Nicholas as president and himself as director of research.[6] In September 1939, after a more than decade-long legal battle, RCA finally conceded to a multi-year licensing agreement concerning Farnsworth's 1927 patent for television totaling $1 million. RCA was then free, after showcasing electronic television at New York World's Fair on April 20, 1939, to sell electronic television cameras to the public.[6][27]​

How much money did Sarnoff and RCA make off of TV?

Farnsworth sold the patent rights to them. What difference does it make how much money they made off of it?

Being tied up in court for years can do that

Can do what?