Chomsky on Intellectual Property
groups.google.com
Chomsky on Intellectual Property
1–10 of 133 posts
Re: Chomsky on Intellectual Property
#2"I mean, Einstein didn't have any intellectual property rights
on relativity theory."
I'm fine with scientific facts not being patented, but something like Photoshop or Microsoft windows isn't scientific fact.
Re: Chomsky on Intellectual Property
#3Most of the serious research and
development, the hard part of it, is funded by the public. In fact most of
the economy comes out of public expenditures through the state system, which
is the source of most innovation and development. I mean computers, the
internet. Just go through the range, it's all coming out of the state
system primarily. There is research and development in the corporate
system, some, but it's mostly at the marketing end. And the same is true of
drugs.
Re: Chomsky on Intellectual Property
#4Most of the serious research and development, the hard part of it, is funded by the public. In fact most of the economy comes out of public expenditures through the state system, which is the source of most innovation and development. I mean computers, the internet. Just go through the range, it's all coming out of the state system primarily. There is research and development in the corporate system, some, but it's m…
the hard part of it
This is absolutely false. I agree that discovery isn't easy, but you know what's even harder? The other 90% of the work needed to finish it and make it a reliable product. Chomsky trivializes the work of synthetic organic chemists, the engineers that set up and keep production lines going, researchers that test the drugs, and so on.
In software terms, this is like saying that all the hard work is done because someone banged out a prototype over the weekend. It's full of bugs and doesn't have the features people want yet.
If you believe that Chomsky's right, try running a startup while holding his idea. You'll fail, or you'll discover that it's not easy and reject his idea.
Re: Chomsky on Intellectual Property
#5Most of the serious research and development, the hard part of it, is funded by the public. In fact most of the economy comes out of public expenditures through the state system, which is the source of most innovation and development. I mean computers, the internet. Just go through the range, it's all coming out of the state system primarily. There is research and development in the corporate system, some, but it's m…
I think there is a [citation needed] there, but I also think he's willfully ignoring that productizing stuff is difficult.
Here's a great example of "public goods" that's near and dear to my heart: I love Linux, and there's no way in hell I'd use anything else. However, it's hard to argue that it sets the pace in terms of usability. Commercial operations produced easier systems for the end user well before Linux got there.
Why? Because they got paid for their results, and they got paid because of intellectual property. And as they got paid, they sunk part of that money back into research and development into improving the experience. There is a comparatively tiny amount of money going into the Linux Desktop.
Re: Chomsky on Intellectual Property
#6Most of the serious research and development, the hard part of it, is funded by the public. In fact most of the economy comes out of public expenditures through the state system, which is the source of most innovation and development. I mean computers, the internet. Just go through the range, it's all coming out of the state system primarily. There is research and development in the corporate system, some, but it's m…
the hard part of it This is absolutely false. I agree that discovery isn't easy, but you know what's even harder? The other 90% of the work needed to finish it and make it a reliable product. Chomsky trivializes the work of synthetic organic chemists, the engineers that set up and keep production lines going, researchers that test the drugs, and so on. In software terms, this is like saying that all the hard work is…
He's talking about research. You're talking about development.
None of these things are exactly easy, but at least with development you're building toward something.
Re: Chomsky on Intellectual Property
#7"I mean, Einstein didn't have any intellectual property rights on relativity theory." I'm fine with scientific facts not being patented, but something like Photoshop or Microsoft windows isn't scientific fact.
How about file formats? Graphics manipulation algorithms? Where's the line between things like relativity theory and things like Photoshop?
Re: Chomsky on Intellectual Property
#8Does anyone seriously still listen to Chomsky? This guy has zero credibility as far as I'm concerned.
Re: Chomsky on Intellectual Property
#9Earlier quoted context omitted.
the hard part of it This is absolutely false. I agree that discovery isn't easy, but you know what's even harder? The other 90% of the work needed to finish it and make it a reliable product. Chomsky trivializes the work of synthetic organic chemists, the engineers that set up and keep production lines going, researchers that test the drugs, and so on. In software terms, this is like saying that all the hard work is…
He's talking about research. You're talking about development. None of these things are exactly easy, but at least with development you're building toward something.
Where does one stop and the other begin?
Much of what we call research vs. what we call development is simply an artifact that stems from the way science is funded today. However, science can't (and won't) always be funded by giant government bodies. (To say that it will assumes that the way things are can go on forever, but history shows that civilizations have lifespans just like everything else.)
Re: Chomsky on Intellectual Property
#10We certainly wouldn't have had a textile industry. British textiles were way cheaper and better. Actually British textiles were cheaper and better because Britain had crushed Irish and Indian superior textile manufacturers and stolen their techniques. So they were now the preeminent textile manufacturer, by force of course.