Except when a competitive response to your offering threatens the incumbents revenue stream. That's the one case an incumbent will be slow to invest in competing technology.
Another trigger for the uproar these days is the fear that Krugman and his ilk are allowed to conduct grand social experiments with the economy. Many see huge economics experiments like the Great Moderation as the cause of our ills, and expect the worst from risky proposals from economists and politicians.
Odd, since our ipad has hardly been used the last few weeks. After a couple of weeks of heavy use, it's now gathering dust. Wife is back to using her netbook, kids have gone back to their own computers.
Not saying it's useless, but it is far less used than I expected.
This is an example of an obvious idea - only it won't be obvious until people start using networked computers for some time and realize the need. Unfortunately we have a low bar for what is not obvious, e.g. when no one else has yet had the need for it. Being the first to do something should not give anyone the right to prevent others from doing it.
Patents are a net cost to society, and software and business patents are teeing up to explode those costs. A large tax on the real economy this way comes, with the spoils largely to lawyers and financiers who produce nothing of real value.
Just because bankers are not the root of all evil does not mean they are not evil.
The key message is that bankers do a lot more damage than good with the money and leverage handed to them by the govt. Their positive impact on the economy has been vastly overstated, and the public is increasingly wise to that scam.
This is why the parents of affected kids don't trust the medical community to address their concerns. They see the impact immediately after the kids get vaccines, but your mind is made up unfortunately.
Krugman is obviously smart, as well as arrogant and a liberal shill. But that's not the problem.
The issue is that he, and the economics establishment led by Helicopter Ben, never met a rate cut they did not like. Cheap money and credit are the fix for every problem. Today many recognize Greenspan held rates too low for too long. At the time, Krugman opposed rate increases from those low levels. He and his ilk fail to see any connection between destructive booms and the cheap credit they promote.