Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Chomsky on Intellectual Property

groups.google.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 133 posts

Re: Chomsky on Intellectual Property

#31

Post by hasenj »

maxharris wrote: post #29
hasenj wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Try running a startup without Linux and the entire open source ecosystem.

I'm a BSD fan myself, but startups are possible without open source. Stack Overflow runs on Windows, for example. The one thing that startups need is freedom to make what people want so that those people will freely choose to pay the startup (how many startups existed in the USSR in 1970?). OSS is just a nice-to-have once you look at it that way. If it was a necessity, you'd have to explain how there were startups be…

SO is the exception that proves the rule.

Also, another thing. Linux/BSD push the bar way high up and force Windows to try and catch up. So even if you use windows, you're still affected by Linux. In the same way that you're affected (positively) by Apple even if you use Ubuntu.

Re: Chomsky on Intellectual Property

#32

Post by nickpinkston »

maxharris wrote: post #4
Tycho wrote: post #3

Most 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…

If you're talking about keeping production lines going - this isn't really part of what no-IP would do. Someone would still need to operate and maintain production and distribution - however the competition to do this would drive costs down dramatically.

Also, high margins and no competitive pressure make research and dev methods stagnant - no IP + public research funding and FDA subsidies seems like a more effective system to me.

Re: Chomsky on Intellectual Property

#33

Post by stephth »

Nice read. I've never read any Chomsky. He mentions inventions related to industries (textiles, steel and pharmaceutical...) and sciences. I'd be curious to read more from him about IP applied to art. Any idea where to look at?

Re: Chomsky on Intellectual Property

#34

Post by notque »

rick888 wrote: post #19
tjr wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How about file formats? Graphics manipulation algorithms? Where's the line between things like relativity theory and things like Photoshop?

"How about file formats? Graphics manipulation algorithms? " If Einstein wouldn't have come up with his theory, someone else would have. Those properties aren't going to change. Photoshop, file formats, and algorithms are unique to the individual/individuals that created them.

.... both are not unique to the individual that created them. They both would have been come up with by other people.

Re: Chomsky on Intellectual Property

#35

Post by maxharris »

hasenj wrote: post #31
maxharris wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm a BSD fan myself, but startups are possible without open source. Stack Overflow runs on Windows, for example. The one thing that startups need is freedom to make what people want so that those people will freely choose to pay the startup (how many startups existed in the USSR in 1970?). OSS is just a nice-to-have once you look at it that way. If it was a necessity, you'd have to explain how there were startups be…

SO is the exception that proves the rule. Also, another thing. Linux/BSD push the bar way high up and force Windows to try and catch up. So even if you use windows, you're still affected by Linux. In the same way that you're affected (positively) by Apple even if you use Ubuntu.

The operating system is just one component. People had lives and did things before there were operating systems of any kind.

Edit: For example, could you write CAD software without an OS as we know it today? It would be undoubtedly harder, but you could. People did this in the 60s.

Re: Chomsky on Intellectual Property

#36

Post by ZeroGravitas »

davidw wrote: post #5
Tycho wrote: post #3

Most 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…

They think they'll get paid more because of IP that'll give them a monopoly if they hit the lock-in jackpot and one or two of the many competitors does get paid in that way, while the others fail. Remove the IP and you remove the lottery-style incentive structure and then you'll see investment in the smaller, but still commercially relevant returns available from building on open systems. (This is similar to massive investment in minor, but patentable, changes to existing drugs rather than investment in novel, but less profitable drugs).

Re: Chomsky on Intellectual Property

#37

Post by jbooth »

maxharris wrote: post #23
wlievens wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The other side of that argument is of course that most patients don't want "unsafe" drugs, so that regulation has a purpose. Is there any way to get a best of both worlds in this scenario? Quicker to-market times for drugs for rare and dangerous diseases, and the safe route for the more common drugs?

Is there any way to get a best of both worlds in this scenario? Quicker to-market times for drugs for rare and dangerous diseases, and the safe route for the more common drugs? Of course there is. Regulations can be changed, freeing drug companies to research and develop these drugs. In fact, I'm sure that this change - this partial deregulation compromise - is going to happen, someday. But on what principle should w…

You draw the line where it works best, because it works best.

The goal isn't some nebulous definition of "freedom", where "freedom" is defined as "adherence to conservative orthodoxy regardless of the particulars".

The goal is something that works well.

Re: Chomsky on Intellectual Property

#38

Post by hasenj »

maxharris wrote: post #35
hasenj wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

SO is the exception that proves the rule. Also, another thing. Linux/BSD push the bar way high up and force Windows to try and catch up. So even if you use windows, you're still affected by Linux. In the same way that you're affected (positively) by Apple even if you use Ubuntu.

The operating system is just one component. People had lives and did things before there were operating systems of any kind. Edit: For example, could you write CAD software without an OS as we know it today? It would be undoubtedly harder, but you could. People did this in the 60s.

I'm not sure how this fits into the discussion, but what you're saying can be used as an argument against IP.

Since people lived just fine before technology, we don't need technology all that much, therefore we don't need IP.

Re: Chomsky on Intellectual Property

#39

Post by [deleted] »

hasenj wrote: post #38
maxharris wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The operating system is just one component. People had lives and did things before there were operating systems of any kind. Edit: For example, could you write CAD software without an OS as we know it today? It would be undoubtedly harder, but you could. People did this in the 60s.

I'm not sure how this fits into the discussion, but what you're saying can be used as an argument against IP. Since people lived just fine before technology, we don't need technology all that much, therefore we don't need IP.

[deleted]

Re: Chomsky on Intellectual Property

#40

Post by davidw »

ZeroGravitas wrote: post #36
davidw wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

They think they'll get paid more because of IP that'll give them a monopoly if they hit the lock-in jackpot and one or two of the many competitors does get paid in that way, while the others fail. Remove the IP and you remove the lottery-style incentive structure and then you'll see investment in the smaller, but still commercially relevant returns available from building on open systems. (This is similar to massive…

There are a ton of "smaller but commercially relevant" companies that sell closed software products too, and would not be able to do so, or would be hampered, without some form of intellectual property.

I'm a bit at a loss as to how many people on a site dedicated, in part, to startups, which for most of us are based on information goods (software) would blithely throw out the baby with the bathwater in terms of IP. Take a good, hard look at the current system and fix major portions of it? Sure. Eliminate it entirely? Probably a bad idea.

Post reply on HN