Intellectual Property and Economic Prosperity: Friends or Foes?
One of the USPTO report’s most frequently discussed findings was that “IP-intensive” industries employ a lot of people: “Direct employment in the subset of most IP-intensive industries identified in this report amounted to 27.1 million jobs in 2010, while indirect activities associated with these industries provided an additional 12.9 million jobs throughout the economy in 2010, for a total of 40.0 million jobs, or 27.7 percent of all jobs in the economy.”
Previous comments... You are currently on page 2.
I wax floors at night at Walmart in a job I've come to loathe but endure, to feed my body and keep a roof over my head; and to live on the least I can, to go days without sleep to try to write, to model, to animate, to program, something, anything to feed my need to create. I don't do it because want to make a better living, although I do. I do it because before I die I must create *something*. Even if nobody will pay me a brass nickel for it.
As the saying goes, "that's why they call it 'work'".
Linus Torvalds made his living otherwise while he created Linux.
Who should decide that they need to get paid? You? db? Obama?
No, only the creators are fit to determine what compensation, if any, they must have.
Robert A. Heinlein did stone masonry for entertainment; he wrote SF for a living.
You didn't read the info link about Linus Torvalds, did you?
First, "they" are not monolithic, any more than Tea Partiers or Objectivists. Second, "they", such as Linus Torvalds promote the idea of free as in freedom, not free as in beer.
We are exchanging ideas here. If we had to charge money and threaten to sue over every comment quoted, there would be no exchange of ideas. The core of the GPL is that the source code be included, so that other creative people can build on it, and make something still better. It belies the myth that the initial creator of a work is all-powerful and infallible. Commercial software is just as bug-prone as open source, but, even those with the ability cannot fix it for their own use without the source code.
"But what is an artist in this world *but* a servant? A lacky for the rich and powerful? Before we can even begin to work to feed this craving of ours, we must find a patron. A rich man of affairs, or a merchant or a prince... or a pope. We must bow, fawn, kiss-hand, to be able to do the things we *must* do... or die. (laugh) we are harlots; always peddling beauty at the doorsteps of the mighty.
...
"You'll always be an artist; you have no choice." - Raphael to Michelangelo, "The Agony and the Ecstasy"
"Michelangelo make up your mind once and for all; do you want to finish that ceiling?"
"More than my life". - Madame de Medici and Michelangelo "the Agony and the Ecstasy"
Hackers are another kind of artist. There are some of us in this world in whom the lust to create, the need to create burns our souls to a cinder. There is no monetary recompense enough to sate that desire; no amount of money can compare to the reward of seeing the look of awe, admiration, even ecstasy in the eyes of others capable of appreciating the creation.
They are compelled by their own desires to do it, money notwithstanding.
I don't know who I pity more, the people so devoid of soul like you and db, who cannot know this burning desire, or the people like the character Salieri in "Amadeus", and myself, who feel the lust burning within us, but lack the ability and talent to give it voice and form, and can only weep in appreciation at those who can create.
All I know is that the world is a better place for ceiling of the Sistine chapel, and there is no amount of money on Earth that can adequately pay for the gift Michelangelo gave the world through his need to create in paint and stone.
I'm switching from Lightwave (which I've used for years) to Blender. Not because it's free, but because its workflow better suits me; because there are more resources out there for it, including tutorials and plug-ins. Because problems get fixed more quickly by people who encounter the same bugs and issues I do, but because they have the ability and access to the source, they can fix and improve, without waiting for Newtek to get a round tuit.
No, I don't oppose intellectual property. I just recognize that there's room in the world for both models.
I sort of look at this as a technology baseline. The SW GNU offers is inferior to commercial versions, and probably always will be, but for simple word processing, spreadsheets and mundane image processing, it works well. It doesn't really compete with Abobe Photoshop or MS Word. It competes with Adobe Elements and MS Workshop (or whatever MS calls that junk now). These are offered to keep people in the MS camp or in Adobe's case to gain a little revenue from people who will not go straight to Photoshop for $495, but perhaps can be tempted to for more features.
Adobe could learn a lot from the MathWorks model (even easier to reverse engineer...but no one really does). MathWorks gives their SW away to education, and like crack, the graduating engineers, et al go right for it when they graduate. They have established a serious hold in mathematical SW.
It is interesting that the barrier to entry in SW is much lower to develop a product, but the market barrier to entry is much higher, since compatibility is so valuable.
And I'm not the one who keeps asserting that software is a way of "wiring an electronic circuit", speaking of irrational.
I agree, a breakthrough of any kind should be patentable. I was just pointing out that in the present system, source code and executables are protected as trade secrets + copyrights.
Now if they were patented instead, the life of ip protection might be shorter and it would foster the innovation patents are supposed to engender in others, by extending the state of the art.
Since people choose to live, they must eat. they must put a roof over their heads. I have nothing against an open source concept, but in reality, they are trying to push an agenda that all software should be freely exchanged. IT gives the impression that their "free" software is more virtuous than software which is licensed for sale. Ultimately, nothing is free, including their desire to freely give it. They use property rights enforcement the same as a paid developer. So clearly they see value in having the property right.
All software can be converted to "math." ASCII codes, for example. All computers are only able to work with "math." or really voltage levels...or open and closed states. right?
Apple then innovated and probably could not protect their innovations under patent law.
The following may be truth or speculation:
http://zurb.com/article/801/steve-jobs-a...
I am glad that Xerox Parc and Apple both had the vision and the financial incentive to innovate.
I suspect these are the same motivations for the GNU contributors. Now Ayn would probably say that enjoyment is a benefit and there is an intangible quid-pro-quo involved, and she is probably right. However, getting paid wasn't necessary.
What is your perspective on this? BTW, I greatly enjoy and appreciate comments from you and your spouse. They are typically very clear, concise and flawlessly logical. However, on this subject they seem considerably more defensive, even though I think we are very closely aligned. Have you guys been bludgeoned on this subject?
It has been suggested that I am delusional, but typically in reference to my thoughts on the attentions of a woman, or a physical feat I am bragging about.
from math, which is used in physics or EE.
I see software as logic taken to an extreme level of
development, don't you? -- j
sigh...
I think Robbie's point is that your position on this may not be entirely objective, having a vested interest in patent creation.
Btw, how much did you charge the poor entrepreneur for your reassurance?
If I enjoy making pies, and I give them away to people because I enjoy seeing people enjoy the pies I make, that doesn't make me anti-property, that makes me A) generous B) human. I *get* my reward, even though it's an intangible like 'feelings'.
If I enjoy teaching, and I teach people how to make pies, my payment is that enjoyment I feel in teaching. There's no need and should be no requirement that I demand money for the training I provide.
Value is relative, and I thought, based on the individual.
You & hubby make your living leeching off of inventors, and you accuse ME of not being objective?
Load more comments...