Freedom to tinker is one thing, but to mold the law, to over-ride productive industry, to consider your "tinkering rights" intruded on when you can't do what you feel like w/ someone's product- isn't that kind of a stretch from Hayek. I'll follow Tim's reading for now, but questions remain...
If tinkerers are that good at tinkering, why don't they build their own iPod and XBox. Apple and MSFT do take consumer feedback, but rather than wait for them to accomodate tinkering, why not build your own product and compete. Why is there no FOSS equivalent of the iPod and XBox to tinker with.
V
· 3 years ago
Noel, you forgot something. When they sell it to you, it is no longer their property. And this is what Microsoft and Apple try very hard to forget. Copyright does exist, but outside of replicating someone else's work precisely as is, they don't have a right to tell me what I can or cannot do with the product which I now own. Afterall, I paid for it.
If the tinkerer then chooses to make a business out of his invention, yes, he has to build his own iPod or XBox. Actually, that's even more difficult, because it can't be an exact replica.
Lewis Baumstark
· 3 years ago
Freedom to tinker is one thing, but to mold the law, to over-ride productive industry, to consider your "tinkering rights" intruded on when you can't do what you feel like w/ someone's product
Short of an explicit contract between producer and consumer (and not a contract look-a-like such as DRM), the government should have no role in promoting "productive industry" over "tinkering rights" or vice-versa. The default then becomes one where the producer rightly has no control over what the consumer does post-sale.
Steve R.
· 3 years ago
Nearly every advance in the "Arts and Science" is an incremental step based on the tinkering with previously developed concepts and technologies to make them better and more useful to society. Consequently, the "freedom to tinker" must be protected.
The argument that so-called "productive industries" need to protected does not truly foster progress because it creates a monopoly right where the interest is in protecting the revenue stream of the company rather than innovation. Patent infringement lawsuits are examples of squelching innovation. Additionally this argument, side-steps the possibility that competitors, who are even more productive, could emerge. Enhanced productivity, in a competitative environment, improves economic progress in our society.
I do accept that patents and copyright have their place as a reasonable means of allowing the innovater a means of attempting to make a profit, provided patents and copytight are for a very limited period of time, do not cover concepts, and allow for incremental advances.
Tim
· 3 years ago
Noel, so you're saying some guy in his basement should launch his own competitor to the XBox in his free time?
MikeT
· 3 years ago
Noel, please, don't be a sophist. The freedom to tinker is a right that exists by default that can only be altered or abolished by the force of law. It is not something that can be positively granted (except if you accept the totalitarian premise that governments give rights to the people), it's something that exists until lobbyists and legislators pass laws that take it away. What you are attempting to convince us is that it is some "socialist" crap that was added to the law, when in fact it is a natural right that existed before there were intellectual property laws.
Noel Le
· 3 years ago
Tim, some guy in his basement can launch a FOSS project to build something similar to the XBox, so that he and his pals can tinker. (hmmm, I thought one game console actually ran on Linux). In any case, whats the excitement with tinkering with the XBox, why not some defunct console that nobody has billions invested in.
Mike, what do you think of developer kits and the XBox project to allow uers to build their own games.
V, when a company sells or licenses you something, you are purchasing/ lilcensing the product/service, as well as restrictions on it.
Lewis, although the DMCA and other IP doctrines may be at issue here, I still see tinkering as something negotiated between consumers and firms(all private entities).
Steve, I believe you're talking about fair use in copyrights, in patents there is a semi-analogies doctrine of improvements. I don't see how these concepts are inadequate for the purposes you cite.
MikeT
· 3 years ago
I don't think that they are relevant to the discussion. The freedom to tinker is the right to modify the hardware and to write software that will run on it. The toolkits you reference are a Microsoft-approved mechanism for doing that. What Tim and I support is the abolition of all legal authority on Microsoft's part to prevent people from writing their own software or making their own hardware that is compatible with the XBox. You don't need their toolkits to make games that will run on the XBox.
I go a step further and think that the basic software that is loaded on the XBox is fair game. You can write separate developer tools that will be able to link into the XBox's OS without using Microsoft's tools. Microsoft sold the OS as part of the platform, so I see no reason why they should maintain control over the OS. That's as utterly asinine as arguing that your car company should maintain control over your engine.
Lewis Baumstark
· 3 years ago
Lewis, although the DMCA and other IP doctrines may be at issue here, I still see tinkering as something negotiated between consumers and firms(all private entities).
Then why are you suggesting public policy should favor "productive industry" over "tinkering rights" instead of policy that takes a neutral stance? Once again, to be clear: the right to modify a lawfully-purchased piece of hardware or software is the default case and can only be supplanted by a negotiated contract.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but your stance seems to be that tinkering rights only exist when granted by the producer.
Steve R.
· 3 years ago
Noel: First use applies if you buy, a book for example, and then sell it to another. The "freedom to tinker", however is a much broader concept as it applies to making an existing product better and then making it commercially available. The current trend (if allowed to continue) in so-called "intellectual property" would stifle innovation.
Let's take a stove (as a product) for example. Stoves, to operate efficiently, require good insulation to keep the heat in. Under the current approach being advocated by the "intellectual property" crowd, a patent can be granted to a "device that cooks by radiant and conductive heating". The stove manufacturer MEFIRST holds this patent and uses InsulatorXXXX as the insulating material.
Now suppose an inventor develops InsulatorZZZZ as an insulating material and it is four times as efficient as InsulatorXXXX. Now this inventor goes to another company to manufacture a stove using InsulatorZZZZ. Under today's rabid lawsuit environment, this inventor will be immediately hit with a patent infringement lawsuit. For us, as a society, to progress forward we must allow those willing to incrementally improve a product to get it into the economy.
Noel Le
· 3 years ago
Mike, tell me why current fair use exemptions don't suffice. How would you propose modifying them. Certainly, you don't mean that Apple and MSFT should be required to make their hardware and software more accessible. You're arguing that there should be less legal restrictions to tinkering right.
And whats with the new philosophy lingo?
Lewis, when a producer sells or licenses to you a product, then they can set limitations on your "tinkering." Of course, there is some limit to what they can restrict, as governed by IP policies. I see this as a necessity. Take away the right of producers to set such conditions, as lets see how many of them continue to produce.
I'm not knocking tinkering. Well, OK I am. I don't think it can compare to capital intensive R&D; in some technology spaces. In others, tinkering innovates just as well as large scale R&D.; I think we already see where tinkering v big R&D; do their best in the way that FOSS and proprietary technologies are divided in terms of market penetration.
I personally have no problem with anybody tinkering. Heck, many good ideas come from using something in a way it was not originally intended. However, I would not risk productive industry for this, at least not in something like games where it is proven that capital investment is essential for innovation.
Steve, several scholars have given your argument w/r/t patents and copyrights; positing that taking away broad ex post (post production) control over products by owners will invite more competition and innovation, as incumbants have to re-innovate rather than rest on their laurals. There is no consensus on this issue, but I will tell you that given the time it takes to create a mass market product, and the time in which that product will be on the market before newer and better technologies overtake it, that some period of ex post control by the IP owner becomes even more important (aka the software industry).
The issue then becomes how to balance this with the ability of tinkerers after that product has gone off market but is still protected under patents and copyrights.
Perhaps fair use should take into account the fact that a technology is currently commercialized or if its already been put on the shelf?
eee_eff
· 3 years ago
Freedom to tinker is one thing, but to mold the law, to over-ride productive industry, to consider your "tinkering rights" intruded on when you can't do what you feel like w/ someone's product- isn't that kind of a stretch from Hayek.
Absolutely not. The thing that I have always loved about bout both Hayek and Schumpeter (see my rather extensive quotes in earlier posts) is that they both embrace--really embrace--freedom.
As for what you term 'productive industry,' you seem to want to institute some kind of very French-style 'industrial policy' (tr�ès dirigiste, Noel!) to justify the over-riding of freedoms to favor certain industries, or certain kinds of outcomes which Noel Le has ordained to be 'progressive'.
If tinkerers are that good at tinkering, why don't they build their own iPod and XBox.
I think again Noel that you are approaching this with a whole set of preconceptions that cloud your thinking. FOSS may never develop an iPod. On the other hand, a for-profit large scale industrial enterprise would never develop wikipedia, or the linux kernel. (Or Xplanet or aterm)
As the organizations that drive technological progress evolve, the outputs of progress will be different, very different, than what the previous organizations created. Who are you to say that an iPod is the future, and not wikipedia, or the linux kernel, or my self built linux box on which I write this?
If you favor certain types of outcomes by removing freedom, you start down a path of ossification of the market, which will deprive us of the many benefits of market forces.
Noel Le
· 3 years ago
***you seem to want to institute some kind of very French-style 'industrial policy' (tr�ès dirigiste, Noel!) to justify the over-riding of freedoms to favor certain industries, or certain kinds of outcomes which Noel Le has ordained to be 'progressive'.***
Mr. E, I said productive industries, not progressive.
And, I didn't ordain anything as laudable or worthy of shaping policy. The market did by rewarding innovative companies.
***I think again Noel that you are approaching this with a whole set of preconceptions that cloud your thinking.***
No I'm not. I'm approaching things after looking at the market, thats preferable to flipping around terms like revolution and creative destruction like they're toys. Here I refer you to a passage by Professor Merges I recently commented on. Does it sound familiar, eh, Mr. E?
***...stories told by strong public domain advocates feature romantic narratives of resistance and rebellion: the brave and lonely battle of the "little guy" against the flat, metallic, and vapid forces of the corporate media machine. Because this narrative fits the contours of the first amendment literature, constitutional values of self-expression are often invoked ....*** Robert Merges
Man, if you listen to a FOSS discussion you'll hear that the technology industries are hurting due to lag of innovation, rises in transactional costs pushing out small firms and large companies depriving citizens of fundemental rights. It like FOSS supporters think they are saving the industry and fundemental rights!!!
Noel Le
· 3 years ago
***FOSS may never develop an iPod. On the other hand, a for-profit large scale industrial enterprise would never develop wikipedia, or the linux kernel. (Or Xplanet or aterm)***
Mr. E, you hit upon an excellent point. Here's a pat on the back.
Different incentives models produce different kinds of innovations, so the question is how do you optimize different kinds of innovation through regulatory policy.
What Steve, Lewis, V and MikeT speak of above isn't just tinkering for its own good, but innovation based on cumulative and incremental improvements. often through decentralized inputs. I have to disagree with them that these innovation models map to gaming platforms, but they certainly apply elsewhere. Let me look into this a bit more...
Lewis Baumstark
· 3 years ago
Noel: Lewis, when a producer sells or licenses to you a product, then they can set limitations on your "tinkering."
This is in no way inconsistent with what I've said. But the proper mechanism for doing this is explicit contracts, not some assumption that the producer controls my use of a product I've paid for just because it contains their IP. And again, the latter seems to be the point you are arguing. I would like to hear, one way or the other, which side you support.
Noel: What Steve, Lewis, V and MikeT speak of above isn't just tinkering for its own good, but innovation based on cumulative and incremental improvements.
What I argue is that the right to tinker should not be lost as a casualty of legal policies crafted to favor commercial production.
eee_eff
· 3 years ago
Different incentives models produce different kinds of innovations, so the question is how do you optimize different kinds of innovation through regulatory policy.
Unless, of course you actually believe in market forces as beinng the best arbiters of quality. What you are saying inherently requires some top down implementation mechanism for a set of criteria that would be developed upon what basis, Noel? What Noel Le thinks is good?
Noel Le
· 3 years ago
Mr. E, your statement totally changed the paradigms with which I understand innovation. I see the world differently now. I'm still coming to grips with how to concilliate the industry with your insights. 'will reply shortly.
All Comments
If tinkerers are that good at tinkering, why don't they build their own iPod and XBox. Apple and MSFT do take consumer feedback, but rather than wait for them to accomodate tinkering, why not build your own product and compete. Why is there no FOSS equivalent of the iPod and XBox to tinker with.
If the tinkerer then chooses to make a business out of his invention, yes, he has to build his own iPod or XBox. Actually, that's even more difficult, because it can't be an exact replica.
Short of an explicit contract between producer and consumer (and not a contract look-a-like such as DRM), the government should have no role in promoting "productive industry" over "tinkering rights" or vice-versa. The default then becomes one where the producer rightly has no control over what the consumer does post-sale.
The argument that so-called "productive industries" need to protected does not truly foster progress because it creates a monopoly right where the interest is in protecting the revenue stream of the company rather than innovation. Patent infringement lawsuits are examples of squelching innovation. Additionally this argument, side-steps the possibility that competitors, who are even more productive, could emerge. Enhanced productivity, in a competitative environment, improves economic progress in our society.
I do accept that patents and copyright have their place as a reasonable means of allowing the innovater a means of attempting to make a profit, provided patents and copytight are for a very limited period of time, do not cover concepts, and allow for incremental advances.
Noel, please, don't be a sophist. The freedom to tinker is a right that exists by default that can only be altered or abolished by the force of law. It is not something that can be positively granted (except if you accept the totalitarian premise that governments give rights to the people), it's something that exists until lobbyists and legislators pass laws that take it away. What you are attempting to convince us is that it is some "socialist" crap that was added to the law, when in fact it is a natural right that existed before there were intellectual property laws.
Mike, what do you think of developer kits and the XBox project to allow uers to build their own games.
V, when a company sells or licenses you something, you are purchasing/ lilcensing the product/service, as well as restrictions on it.
Lewis, although the DMCA and other IP doctrines may be at issue here, I still see tinkering as something negotiated between consumers and firms(all private entities).
Steve, I believe you're talking about fair use in copyrights, in patents there is a semi-analogies doctrine of improvements. I don't see how these concepts are inadequate for the purposes you cite.
I don't think that they are relevant to the discussion. The freedom to tinker is the right to modify the hardware and to write software that will run on it. The toolkits you reference are a Microsoft-approved mechanism for doing that. What Tim and I support is the abolition of all legal authority on Microsoft's part to prevent people from writing their own software or making their own hardware that is compatible with the XBox. You don't need their toolkits to make games that will run on the XBox.
I go a step further and think that the basic software that is loaded on the XBox is fair game. You can write separate developer tools that will be able to link into the XBox's OS without using Microsoft's tools. Microsoft sold the OS as part of the platform, so I see no reason why they should maintain control over the OS. That's as utterly asinine as arguing that your car company should maintain control over your engine.
Then why are you suggesting public policy should favor "productive industry" over "tinkering rights" instead of policy that takes a neutral stance? Once again, to be clear: the right to modify a lawfully-purchased piece of hardware or software is the default case and can only be supplanted by a negotiated contract.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but your stance seems to be that tinkering rights only exist when granted by the producer.
Let's take a stove (as a product) for example. Stoves, to operate efficiently, require good insulation to keep the heat in. Under the current approach being advocated by the "intellectual property" crowd, a patent can be granted to a "device that cooks by radiant and conductive heating". The stove manufacturer MEFIRST holds this patent and uses InsulatorXXXX as the insulating material.
Now suppose an inventor develops InsulatorZZZZ as an insulating material and it is four times as efficient as InsulatorXXXX. Now this inventor goes to another company to manufacture a stove using InsulatorZZZZ. Under today's rabid lawsuit environment, this inventor will be immediately hit with a patent infringement lawsuit. For us, as a society, to progress forward we must allow those willing to incrementally improve a product to get it into the economy.
And whats with the new philosophy lingo?
Lewis, when a producer sells or licenses to you a product, then they can set limitations on your "tinkering." Of course, there is some limit to what they can restrict, as governed by IP policies. I see this as a necessity. Take away the right of producers to set such conditions, as lets see how many of them continue to produce.
I'm not knocking tinkering. Well, OK I am. I don't think it can compare to capital intensive R&D; in some technology spaces. In others, tinkering innovates just as well as large scale R&D.; I think we already see where tinkering v big R&D; do their best in the way that FOSS and proprietary technologies are divided in terms of market penetration.
I personally have no problem with anybody tinkering. Heck, many good ideas come from using something in a way it was not originally intended. However, I would not risk productive industry for this, at least not in something like games where it is proven that capital investment is essential for innovation.
Steve, several scholars have given your argument w/r/t patents and copyrights; positing that taking away broad ex post (post production) control over products by owners will invite more competition and innovation, as incumbants have to re-innovate rather than rest on their laurals. There is no consensus on this issue, but I will tell you that given the time it takes to create a mass market product, and the time in which that product will be on the market before newer and better technologies overtake it, that some period of ex post control by the IP owner becomes even more important (aka the software industry).
The issue then becomes how to balance this with the ability of tinkerers after that product has gone off market but is still protected under patents and copyrights.
Perhaps fair use should take into account the fact that a technology is currently commercialized or if its already been put on the shelf?
Absolutely not. The thing that I have always loved about bout both Hayek and Schumpeter (see my rather extensive quotes in earlier posts) is that they both embrace--really embrace--freedom.
As for what you term 'productive industry,' you seem to want to institute some kind of very French-style 'industrial policy' (tr�ès dirigiste, Noel!) to justify the over-riding of freedoms to favor certain industries, or certain kinds of outcomes which Noel Le has ordained to be 'progressive'.
If tinkerers are that good at tinkering, why don't they build their own iPod and XBox.
I think again Noel that you are approaching this with a whole set of preconceptions that cloud your thinking. FOSS may never develop an iPod. On the other hand, a for-profit large scale industrial enterprise would never develop wikipedia, or the linux kernel. (Or Xplanet or aterm)
As the organizations that drive technological progress evolve, the outputs of progress will be different, very different, than what the previous organizations created. Who are you to say that an iPod is the future, and not wikipedia, or the linux kernel, or my self built linux box on which I write this?
If you favor certain types of outcomes by removing freedom, you start down a path of ossification of the market, which will deprive us of the many benefits of market forces.
Mr. E, I said productive industries, not progressive.
And, I didn't ordain anything as laudable or worthy of shaping policy. The market did by rewarding innovative companies.
***I think again Noel that you are approaching this with a whole set of preconceptions that cloud your thinking.***
No I'm not. I'm approaching things after looking at the market, thats preferable to flipping around terms like revolution and creative destruction like they're toys. Here I refer you to a passage by Professor Merges I recently commented on. Does it sound familiar, eh, Mr. E?
***...stories told by strong public domain advocates feature romantic narratives of resistance and rebellion: the brave and lonely battle of the "little guy" against the flat, metallic, and vapid forces of the corporate media machine. Because this narrative fits the contours of the first amendment literature, constitutional values of self-expression are often invoked ....*** Robert Merges
Man, if you listen to a FOSS discussion you'll hear that the technology industries are hurting due to lag of innovation, rises in transactional costs pushing out small firms and large companies depriving citizens of fundemental rights. It like FOSS supporters think they are saving the industry and fundemental rights!!!
Mr. E, you hit upon an excellent point. Here's a pat on the back.
Different incentives models produce different kinds of innovations, so the question is how do you optimize different kinds of innovation through regulatory policy.
What Steve, Lewis, V and MikeT speak of above isn't just tinkering for its own good, but innovation based on cumulative and incremental improvements. often through decentralized inputs. I have to disagree with them that these innovation models map to gaming platforms, but they certainly apply elsewhere. Let me look into this a bit more...
This is in no way inconsistent with what I've said. But the proper mechanism for doing this is explicit contracts, not some assumption that the producer controls my use of a product I've paid for just because it contains their IP. And again, the latter seems to be the point you are arguing. I would like to hear, one way or the other, which side you support.
Noel: What Steve, Lewis, V and MikeT speak of above isn't just tinkering for its own good, but innovation based on cumulative and incremental improvements.
What I argue is that the right to tinker should not be lost as a casualty of legal policies crafted to favor commercial production.
Unless, of course you actually believe in market forces as beinng the best arbiters of quality. What you are saying inherently requires some top down implementation mechanism for a set of criteria that would be developed upon what basis, Noel? What Noel Le thinks is good?