In Economics, there is one fundamental law called as Law of diminishing marginal utility.
Before we go further lets set the premises. Marginal means small change. According to Austrian school of economics, Utility could be defined as the satisfaction of needs. [Wiki says, the contemporary mainstream economic theory defers this metaphysical notions and even quantify utility]
To sum up the law of diminishing marginal utility, more you consume a commodity, the marginal utility of the commodity decreases.
To use the food analogy, when you are hungry and eat your first idly, it tastes good, even it is awful and you value that idly way too much. When you are at tenth idly, you are no more hungry. The eleventh idly adds no value or serves no purpose. May be some more calories! This is law of diminishing marginal utility.
There are many places which i feel the most that this law of diminishing marginal utility doesn't holds good. First, Money. Of course, the first million is always the difficult and hard to get by. Rest is easy. The point is do you stop making millions. Wouldn't you think a billion or two is cool after making few millions. Oh yeah my most favourite one, sleep. No matter how long you sleep, don't you value the last five minutes of your morning sleep to be more valuable than the long sound sleep? Here the last unit is much more valuable precious than the first unit or all the other previous units combined!
Well there are other places where this law of diminishing marginal utility does not holds good? But I will leave it to your wild imagination ;) N.B It was a reference to books and knowledge. More the books you read more the knowledge you get not otherwise right. what were you thinking about? ;)
Many people do not like lawyers. They think no good can come out of lawyers. I beg to differ.
I would attribute the evolution of all technological 1.0 2.0 and 3.0 and all others yet to come to Lawyers. Even if not entirely the one and only cause, lawyer(s) was the biggest catalyst in making this happen.
The big bang evolution of Technology started with the PC. More importantly and precisely the IBM clones. It was the Windows that made the IBM clones possible. So where did the lawyers come in to this?
In the name of innovation and secrecy the IBM PC group was way secluded away from the rest of organization. IBM never leveraged the resources within their company. IBM never thought PC could be a game changer. So isn't it all about strategy failure of IBM throwing away the future? NOOOO.
Isn't it all about Bill Gates selling his software all over the world taking a free ride back of the giant IBM? Again I would say NO.
It was because Bill Gates was able to sell his software to all other than IBM too.
Usually when IBM buys software from a vendor, they ask for an exclusive agreement that they should serve as a sole vendor only to IBM. Considering it is OS to the PC, this should have been in the legal agreement. Some lawyer should have spotted this and should have included it in the agreement.
Oh, Would Bill have been bound by a piece of paper? Couldn't Bill have wiggled out of the agreement as he once did with Ed Roberts of MITS? Bill even found a loop hole in an agreement with Steve Jobs and announced the launch of GUI based OS well before the launch of Macintosh. Why not pull the same trick with IBM?
Well, either Roberts or Steve weren't as big as IBM. Bill could have gotten away from any iron clad agreement with Roberts or Steve, but not with IBM! May be Bill could have set himself free from the agreement, even it was iron clad. But then Big Bang of technology evolution couldn't have occured and even if occured, it would have been delayed.
Long live that lawyer who overlooked that clause of the century!