An Alternative to the American Way of Innovation [video] • Hacker News Board

Re: An Alternative to the American Way of Innovation [video]

#11

Post by sgeisler » Sat, Mar 02, 2019, 2:02 AM UTC

doctorpangloss wrote: post #2

It's great to see someone advocating for alternative points of view with respect to IP. It's a moot point though. Artisanal hardware is an intellectual dead end. Cost and IP and economics and whatever are a bunch of red herrings. Hardware standardization is pretty much always superior to fragmentation. I've never heard a hardware engineer advocate for fragmentation! Bunnie Huang should be advocating for the artisanal…

> But artisanal hardware is an intellectual dead end.

I agree that this model of iterative improvement won't yield the next big technological breakthrough. But the big consumer electronics manufacturers aren't really innovating either. They might make a product a little bit flatter or give it another camera, but I can't think of a real game changer in the last five years.

Once all the technology is there and just improves iteratively the described model seems to be better suited to find as many local optima in the possible product space as possible (and not just a few big ones).

I could see how a lack of patents would lead to more secrecy in R&D labs. If what you are doing is truly novel and complicated (like developing a smaller node type in processor manufacturing) keeping the research secret would keep you as safe from competitors as patents. And if you aren't (like inventing rounded corners on smartphones) then you shouldn't have gotten the patent in the first place imho.

Re: An Alternative to the American Way of Innovation [video]

#12

Post by sgeisler » Sat, Mar 02, 2019, 2:09 AM UTC

doctorpangloss wrote: post #9

ohazi wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Then again, it really begs the question, why don't we use any software that comes out of east Asia? Or let's say you buy into sales and profit and economics and mom-and-pop artisanal crafts and whatever as being in and of themselves valuable. It's not happening in Shenzhen with respect to software. Because the approach that Shenzhen uses for hardware is rarely the same approach that they use with software, and thei…

> The software model that's closest to what Bunnie describes in Shenzhen is the plain old open-source model My point is, that model only exists if you respect the rule of law and specifically conventional copyright. So the thing we can point to as a successful (in some conventional sense, as opposed to idiosyncratically "pro-artisanal" Bunnie Huang sense) demo of his theory exists because of, not in spite of Western…

You can make this argument when it comes to GPL software, since it forces you to open source your changes if you want to ship them. But does it hold for MIT licensed software (or if you are picky about attribution CC0)? Couldn't the existence of MIT or CC0 licensed open source projects disprove that

> that model only exists if you respect the rule of law and specifically conventional copyright

because these licenses are basically blank checks to do with the software whatever you want? They don't really depend on the existence of any IP laws.

Re: An Alternative to the American Way of Innovation [video]

#13

Post by archgoon » Sat, Mar 02, 2019, 2:24 AM UTC

sgeisler wrote: post #11

doctorpangloss wrote: post #2

It's great to see someone advocating for alternative points of view with respect to IP. It's a moot point though. Artisanal hardware is an intellectual dead end. Cost and IP and economics and whatever are a bunch of red herrings. Hardware standardization is pretty much always superior to fragmentation. I've never heard a hardware engineer advocate for fragmentation! Bunnie Huang should be advocating for the artisanal…

> But artisanal hardware is an intellectual dead end. I agree that this model of iterative improvement won't yield the next big technological breakthrough. But the big consumer electronics manufacturers aren't really innovating either. They might make a product a little bit flatter or give it another camera, but I can't think of a real game changer in the last five years. Once all the technology is there and just imp…

Well; the entire modern smartphone (post iPhone) industry is only a decade old. Expecting another revolution on par with the first in 5 years seems a pretty high bar to cross.

Re: An Alternative to the American Way of Innovation [video]

#14

Post by johnmarcus » Sat, Mar 02, 2019, 2:36 AM UTC

this only works in an ecosystem where the 'race to the bottom' is futile, because you are already at the bottom. Hence why it works in China, no one is going to take your idea and produce it cheaper because everyone is already functioning in the most efficient manufacturing space possible.

In the western world, this is unfortunately not the case. Getting something produced is very expensive because our labor, machine, and real estate costs. Outsourcing makes it cheaper, once you have that pipeline in place. So if I innovate here without protection but pay the expensive price to have produced here, there is a significant advantage for person #2 with the China factory pipeline in place to steal my invention and significantly undercut my costs.

I do like his idea and wish our 'prototype' maker economy was more efficient in the US, but China has paid a high environmental toll to be in that place and it is a price we are not willing to pay here in the U.S.

Re: An Alternative to the American Way of Innovation [video]

#15

Post by gred » Sat, Mar 02, 2019, 2:38 AM UTC

sgeisler wrote: post #12

doctorpangloss wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The software model that's closest to what Bunnie describes in Shenzhen is the plain old open-source model My point is, that model only exists if you respect the rule of law and specifically conventional copyright. So the thing we can point to as a successful (in some conventional sense, as opposed to idiosyncratically "pro-artisanal" Bunnie Huang sense) demo of his theory exists because of, not in spite of Western…

You can make this argument when it comes to GPL software, since it forces you to open source your changes if you want to ship them. But does it hold for MIT licensed software (or if you are picky about attribution CC0)? Couldn't the existence of MIT or CC0 licensed open source projects disprove that > that model only exists if you respect the rule of law and specifically conventional copyright because these licenses…

I think the point he's making is that all software licenses (including open source licenses like GPL, MIT, BSD and Apache) are built on copyright law; your rights as the copyright holder are the only thing allowing you to authoritatively stipulate that your software may only be used in such-and-such a manner, under so-and-so conditions.

Re: An Alternative to the American Way of Innovation [video]

#16

Post by sgeisler » Sat, Mar 02, 2019, 2:58 AM UTC

gred wrote: post #15

sgeisler wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You can make this argument when it comes to GPL software, since it forces you to open source your changes if you want to ship them. But does it hold for MIT licensed software (or if you are picky about attribution CC0)? Couldn't the existence of MIT or CC0 licensed open source projects disprove that > that model only exists if you respect the rule of law and specifically conventional copyright because these licenses…

I think the point he's making is that all software licenses (including open source licenses like GPL, MIT, BSD and Apache) are built on copyright law; your rights as the copyright holder are the only thing allowing you to authoritatively stipulate that your software may only be used in such-and-such a manner, under so-and-so conditions.

Yes, I understand that, but if there weren't copyright laws we wouldn't need a CC0 license for example, because it would be the natural state of affairs: you can do whatever you want.

And afaik MIT, BSD and Apache just add the duty of mentioning the author, which has no practical implications on the usage of the software. At least I wouldn't care if someone actually writes my name somewhere. If someone asked me to relicense software I wrote as CC0 (and it was formerly MIT) I'd happily do so.

That means that the open source movement doesn't depend on IP laws. Some projects might still depend on it, like the linux kernel (because of GPL) but bitcoin for example doesn't (MIT). Both strategies work in practice.

ADDENDUM: What I want to say is: for many projects IP laws don't have any positive effects, they just add friction by requiring the author to add (and think about) a license.

Re: An Alternative to the American Way of Innovation [video]

#17

Post by eitally » Sat, Mar 02, 2019, 3:01 AM UTC

doctorpangloss wrote: post #2

It's great to see someone advocating for alternative points of view with respect to IP. It's a moot point though. Artisanal hardware is an intellectual dead end. Cost and IP and economics and whatever are a bunch of red herrings. Hardware standardization is pretty much always superior to fragmentation. I've never heard a hardware engineer advocate for fragmentation! Bunnie Huang should be advocating for the artisanal…

Many, many enterprises use software developed in East Asia. There just aren't nearly as many software product companies as in the west. Primarily, afaict, it's because in developing economies like CHina & India (or the Philippines, or Vietnam, ...) there's been enough economic uplift from doing things for other people (IT outsourcing) that tackling the top end of the market hasn't been necessary.

Re: An Alternative to the American Way of Innovation [video]

#18

Post by jancsika » Sat, Mar 02, 2019, 3:08 AM UTC

gred wrote: post #15

sgeisler wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You can make this argument when it comes to GPL software, since it forces you to open source your changes if you want to ship them. But does it hold for MIT licensed software (or if you are picky about attribution CC0)? Couldn't the existence of MIT or CC0 licensed open source projects disprove that > that model only exists if you respect the rule of law and specifically conventional copyright because these licenses…

I think the point he's making is that all software licenses (including open source licenses like GPL, MIT, BSD and Apache) are built on copyright law; your rights as the copyright holder are the only thing allowing you to authoritatively stipulate that your software may only be used in such-and-such a manner, under so-and-so conditions.

> I think the point he's making is that all software licenses (including open source licenses like GPL, MIT, BSD and Apache) are built on copyright law;

GP's point is that 3-clause BSD-licensed software makes such a modest requirement upon licensees that it's functionally equivalent to software in an environment where copyright law doesn't exist.

I also assume that means that the GGP is implying that the GPL's "golden rule" requirement is a necessary restriction to ensure a healthy FLOSS ecosystem. Or at least that the FLOSS ecosystem wouldn't be as vibrant if 3-clause BSD were the only type of FLOSS license.

Re: An Alternative to the American Way of Innovation [video]

#19

Post by cinquemb » Sat, Mar 02, 2019, 3:33 AM UTC

eitally wrote: post #17

doctorpangloss wrote: post #2

It's great to see someone advocating for alternative points of view with respect to IP. It's a moot point though. Artisanal hardware is an intellectual dead end. Cost and IP and economics and whatever are a bunch of red herrings. Hardware standardization is pretty much always superior to fragmentation. I've never heard a hardware engineer advocate for fragmentation! Bunnie Huang should be advocating for the artisanal…

Many, many enterprises use software developed in East Asia. There just aren't nearly as many software product companies as in the west. Primarily, afaict, it's because in developing economies like CHina & India (or the Philippines, or Vietnam, ...) there's been enough economic uplift from doing things for other people (IT outsourcing) that tackling the top end of the market hasn't been necessary.

My problem as a westerner living in Asia for a couple of years, is that the type of retail products that I'm interested in (API's for various things from financial exchanges to consumer goods/services) that are available in the US and are actively marketed, aren't really available to retail users in Asia, and it's really hard to get people to care about it even while they are pitching you to use their mobile app/website.

I know it might not be the best thing to say, but i'm glad that the global economy is starting another downturn with major industries that have provided a boon starting to lose the impact it's had because it will incentivize the marginal person to pursue new opportunities because they no longer have enough economic uplift.

Re: An Alternative to the American Way of Innovation [video]

#20

Post by repsilat » Sat, Mar 02, 2019, 3:38 AM UTC

johnmarcus wrote: post #14

this only works in an ecosystem where the 'race to the bottom' is futile, because you are already at the bottom. Hence why it works in China, no one is going to take your idea and produce it cheaper because everyone is already functioning in the most efficient manufacturing space possible. In the western world, this is unfortunately not the case. Getting something produced is very expensive because our labor, machine…

Software works like this. Language package management and open-source libs are a really close analogue to these little factories and markets full of parts. (I also think we do it with practical knowledge when people change jobs, and I think the short tenures in SV are an undersold competitive advantage.)

For things like UI patterns and non-trademarkable design decisions, I think letting good ideas spread quickly is great for the pace of innovation. Good ideas of those kinds more quickly become table-stakes, and the scales tilt further towards "can execute" and "can consistently innovate" over "had a great idea".