3 ms·

"Are we lobotomizing current culture, or merely freezing it in place with patents, copyrights and other "intellectual property" conceptions?" I have a differen

by rick888 16y ago

"Are we lobotomizing current culture, or merely freezing it in place with patents, copyrights and other "intellectual property" conceptions?" I have a different take on it. Patents, copyrights, and intellectual property increases the rate of new technology because people are forced to be creative (companies have to put R&D into something new and different that isn't already protected). If Google could just copy the iPhone, do you think we would have ever seen anything like the new Android phones? Open source is another example of this phenomenon. How many Linux distros do we have out there that are just copies of the same thing? Even look at apps like VNC. I've seen so many companies just use VNC as a base for their remote viewing app rather than engineer something new. This results in the same bugs, slowness, and overall bad technology rather than a fresh, new approach. Everyone complains about Mysql, yet nobody really has an incentive to create something to replace it (because it's easier to just use it).

DaniFong 16y ago
I haven't yet met any inventor worth a damn that wouldn't invent and innovate for the heck of it. There are really only two things I see patents incentivizing: innovation in otherwise unattractive fields, and development of further innovations due to money won from licensing. I'm not familiar enough with each to comment on how well this works in practice.
kiba 16y ago
There is no such thing as free lunch. It might be more economically efficient to put effort into old technologies rather than trying to come up with novel technologies that does the same thing a little bit better. Sorta like how Linux was able to run on anything and everything. Google chrome, Firefox, and other browsers do not seem to suffer from too much duplications even though they are open source.
- rick888 16y ago
  "Google chrome, Firefox, and other browsers do not seem to suffer from too much duplications even though they are open source." We also aren't seeing much development of innovative new browsers (even though we may not need a new browser), aside from the recent chrome browser. The fact that Internet Explorer is closed source created the need for something new (Firefox). Once all of the browsers are open, it will leave even less of an incentive for a new one to be created. Which might be fine, but browser innovation will stagnate. I hate to see a world where all software was like this. Even Linux was created as an open alternative to closed, proprietary, Unices of the day. Would you even bother creating your own operating system now? Most people would just take the Linux kernel and branch out from there. This same principal can also be applied to development jobs. At some point, most businesses won't require engineers any longer (high paying, intelligent software developers) because the difficult parts have already been created, refined, and given out for free. Instead, a code mechanic (low paying, less education) will be all most businesses need. In essence, open source developers are putting themselves out of a future job. I suppose this is what eventually happens to all industries.
artsrc 16y ago
One thesis is that using other peoples ideas increases the rate of new technology. Another is that being forced to invent your own would. The example of the Tasmanians, who were forced to invent their own stuff not only did not progress technologically, they went backward. So the article supports the idea that if google could just copy the iPhone and add something we would have progress. But if they just re-invent it badly we have regression. As for Linux distos, I would argue that they have out innovated windows in many ways, such as 'apt-get', and knoppix. There are many efforts to replace MySQL, such as CouchDB, Cassandra and MongoDB. Besides MySQL actually works pretty well, its just that SQL apologists try to pretend that other SQL database are significantly different.
- rick888 16y ago
  "So the article supports the idea that if google could just copy the iPhone and add something we would have progress. But if they just re-invent it badly we have regression." Why would we want them to re-invent it badly? I want something completely different. If they just copied the iPhone and added a few things, it might be slightly innovative, but not nearly as much as it could be. It also wouldn't be regression because all of our existing technology wouldn't suddenly degrade.

by rick888 16y ago

DaniFong 16y ago

I haven't yet met any inventor worth a damn that wouldn't invent and innovate for the heck of it. There are really only two things I see patents incentivizing: innovation in otherwise unattractive fields, and development of further innovations due to money won from licensing. I'm not familiar enough with each to comment on how well this works in practice.

kiba 16y ago

There is no such thing as free lunch. It might be more economically efficient to put effort into old technologies rather than trying to come up with novel technologies that does the same thing a little bit better. Sorta like how Linux was able to run on anything and everything. Google chrome, Firefox, and other browsers do not seem to suffer from too much duplications even though they are open source.

rick888 16y ago
"Google chrome, Firefox, and other browsers do not seem to suffer from too much duplications even though they are open source." We also aren't seeing much development of innovative new browsers (even though we may not need a new browser), aside from the recent chrome browser. The fact that Internet Explorer is closed source created the need for something new (Firefox). Once all of the browsers are open, it will leave even less of an incentive for a new one to be created. Which might be fine, but browser innovation will stagnate. I hate to see a world where all software was like this. Even Linux was created as an open alternative to closed, proprietary, Unices of the day. Would you even bother creating your own operating system now? Most people would just take the Linux kernel and branch out from there. This same principal can also be applied to development jobs. At some point, most businesses won't require engineers any longer (high paying, intelligent software developers) because the difficult parts have already been created, refined, and given out for free. Instead, a code mechanic (low paying, less education) will be all most businesses need. In essence, open source developers are putting themselves out of a future job. I suppose this is what eventually happens to all industries.

artsrc 16y ago

One thesis is that using other peoples ideas increases the rate of new technology. Another is that being forced to invent your own would. The example of the Tasmanians, who were forced to invent their own stuff not only did not progress technologically, they went backward. So the article supports the idea that if google could just copy the iPhone and add something we would have progress. But if they just re-invent it badly we have regression. As for Linux distos, I would argue that they have out innovated windows in many ways, such as 'apt-get', and knoppix. There are many efforts to replace MySQL, such as CouchDB, Cassandra and MongoDB. Besides MySQL actually works pretty well, its just that SQL apologists try to pretend that other SQL database are significantly different.

rick888 16y ago
"So the article supports the idea that if google could just copy the iPhone and add something we would have progress. But if they just re-invent it badly we have regression." Why would we want them to re-invent it badly? I want something completely different. If they just copied the iPhone and added a few things, it might be slightly innovative, but not nearly as much as it could be. It also wouldn't be regression because all of our existing technology wouldn't suddenly degrade.