[p2p-research] CAD files at The PIrate Bay? (Follow up)

[Michel Bauwens]

I edited the conversation in the following way for nov 6, extra comments
still welcome, and I'll add them to the comments fields:

Does the local and distributed economy need
patents?<http://blog.p2pfoundation.net/?p=5673>
[image: photo of Michel Bauwens]
Michel Bauwens
28th October 2009

 In our P2P Research mailing list, local economy advocate and developer *Sam
Rose* has argued that the use of patents are counter-productive for local
efforts that rely on distributed manufacturing networks:

*“It may seem dogmatic, but I think that usually for the problems we are
focused on, patents and traditional capital (with it’s traditional
expectations of very rapid money ROI) tend to be non-appropriate for
localized economies/commons based business models.*

*Removing patent gives rapid ROI on many forms of wealth, including
money. A group of people on local scales may not invest in technology
development solely as a capital venture. Often, it is an investment to
gain the capacities the technology affords (food, energy, physical
object and rapid prototype produciton). Patents block the flow on this
scale, and the costs associated are a barrier to entry. The business
model on this scale is at the point of consumption (but one person may be
producer, processor, distributor, and consumer. This is not a role-based
economy, it’s an activity based economy.”*

*Kevin Carson* agrees, and stresses that this model makes patents obsolete:

*“Modular design, with stigmergic efforts to create modules for a common
open-source platform, would greatly lower R&D cost per product: spreading
out the R&D for a platform and for modules by making the basic designs
reusable over a wide range of different configurations.”*

*Andy Robison* replied with the following cautionary remarks referring to
the real trends we can observe:

“First point: the switch from concentrated (MNC) to diffuse (garage)
distribution of manufacturing is affected by the whole field of intellectual
property (IP), not just patents. While patents may indeed be unaffordable
for very small outfits, the same problems do not affect other forms of IP
such as copyright and trademarks.

Second point: there is little empirical evidence of a move away from IP in
fields most open to decentralised production. Open-source software
specifically defends itself against IP by formal and deliberate means, but
the wider field of diffuse software production gets pulled back into IP
disputes constantly, with disputes over ideas still at the “garage” stage
(c.f. the lawsuit over who invented Facebook). IP also seems not to be
disappearing from production of books, music, games, etc.

Third point: the move towards decentralisation is relative. It is true that
from a normative point of view, the creation of a non- or post-capitalist
social system would most likely eliminate IP. However, from an empirical
point of view, changes within capitalism towards decentralisation are not
leading to the elimination of big businesses but rather, to flattened
hierarchies and contracting-out. Small businesses plugged into the world
economy usually produce goods trademarked, copyrighted and patented by large
corporations. Large corporations see the need to continue and even tighten
these IP regimes because their relevance to the whole process is centrally
premised on the extraction of rent on IP - the IP regime prevents small
companies undercutting large companies in local markets. Indeed, I would
maintain given recent studies showing equal productivity in factories in
North and South, that the central mechanism of core-periphery exploitation
has moved from technological inequality (high vs low value added) to rent
extraction on IP. Since the loss of IP would make large companies
irrelevant, they fight tooth and nail to preserve it, even beyond strict
competitiveness, and behave in otherwise quite “irrational” ways to prevent
their own irrelevance (e.g. the MPAA and RIAA’s alienating of customers).

Fourth point: IP is a form of rent-extraction carried out by or through
states, not strictly speaking a part of the process of capitalist markets.
The persistence of the practice can be undermined by refusal to take
advantage of legal privileges/rights which exist, but the laws will not
disappear due to market processes, only due to state decisions. It is
possible that states will decide that IP is retarding competitiveness and
needs to go, but it seems unlikely given the latest trends towards more
draconian enforcement. It may be more likely that states will expand IP
coverage to address new problems. Hence, if small businesses are not getting
patents because of cost, states might reduce or eliminate the cost of
patents for small businesses.

Fifth point: it may be more productive to look at the continuing
applicability or enforceability of IP, rather than whether businesses will
continue to use it. While this is very visible in the virtual and
informational sphere (”pirating” and free duplication of games, software,
console systems, music, film, TV, news, books, etc), it is also increasingly
the case in terms of technological hardware. Growing Southern economies -
China being especially notorious - tend to have either limited IP regimes or
lax enforcement, meaning that everything that a MNC produces there, will
also be copied or counterfeited at the same quality for the local market,
and in some cases traded internationally. I have my suspicions that Southern
regimes are very aware of the centrality of IP to core-periphery
exploitation and their laxity is quite deliberate. But, in part it also
reflects the limits of the Southern state in terms of capacity to dominate
society, and the growing sophistication of transnational networks (e.g.
organised crime networks), which can evade, penetrate and fight the state
very effectively.”


On Wed, Oct 28, 2009 at 9:36 AM, Andy Robinson <ldxar1 at gmail.com> wrote:

> First point:  the switch from concentrated (MNC) to diffuse (garage)
> distribution of manufacturing is affected by the whole field of intellectual
> property (IP), not just patents.  While patents may indeed be unaffordable
> for very small outfits, the same problems do not affect other forms of IP
> such as copyright and trademarks.
>
> Second point: there is little empirical evidence of a move away from IP in
> fields most open to decentralised production.  Open-source software
> specifically defends itself against IP by formal and deliberate means, but
> the wider field of diffuse software production gets pulled back into IP
> disputes constantly, with disputes over ideas still at the "garage" stage
> (c.f. the lawsuit over who invented Facebook).  IP also seems not to be
> disappearing from production of books, music, games, etc.
>
> Third point: the move towards decentralisation is relative.  It is true
> that from a *normative *point of view, the creation of a *non- or
> post-capitalist* social system would most likely eliminate IP.  However,
> from an *empirical* point of view, changes *within capitalism *towards
> decentralisation are not leading to the elimination of big businesses but
> rather, to flattened hierarchies and contracting-out.  Small businesses
> plugged into the world economy usually produce goods trademarked,
> copyrighted and patented by large corporations.  Large corporations see the
> need to continue and even tighten these IP regimes because their relevance
> to the whole process is centrally premised on the extraction of rent on IP -
> the IP regime prevents small companies undercutting large companies in local
> markets.  Indeed, I would maintain given recent studies showing equal
> productivity in factories in North and South, that the central mechanism of
> core-periphery exploitation has moved from technological inequality (high vs
> low value added) to rent extraction on IP.  Since the loss of IP would make
> large companies irrelevant, they fight tooth and nail to preserve it, even
> beyond strict competitiveness, and behave in otherwise quite "irrational"
> ways to prevent their own irrelevance (e.g. the MPAA and RIAA's alienating
> of customers).
>
> Fourth point: IP is a form of rent-extraction carried out by or through
> states, not strictly speaking a part of the process of capitalist markets.
> The persistence of the practice can be undermined by refusal to take
> advantage of legal privileges/rights which exist, but the laws will not
> disappear due to market processes, only due to state decisions.  It is
> possible that states will decide that IP is retarding competitiveness and
> needs to go, but it seems unlikely given the latest trends towards more
> draconian enforcement.  It may be more likely that states will expand IP
> coverage to address new problems.  Hence, if small businesses are not
> getting patents because of cost, states might reduce or eliminate the cost
> of patents for small businesses.
>
> Fifth point: it may be more productive to look at the continuing
> applicability or enforceability of IP, rather than whether businesses will
> continue to use it.  While this is very visible in the virtual and
> informational sphere ("pirating" and free duplication of games, software,
> console systems, music, film, TV, news, books, etc), it is also increasingly
> the case in terms of technological hardware.  Growing Southern economies -
> China being especially notorious - tend to have either limited IP regimes or
> lax enforcement, meaning that everything that a MNC produces there, will
> also be copied or counterfeited at the same quality for the local market,
> and in some cases traded internationally.  I have my suspicions that
> Southern regimes are very aware of the centrality of IP to core-periphery
> exploitation and their laxity is quite deliberate.  But, in part it also
> reflects the limits of the Southern state in terms of capacity to dominate
> society, and the growing sophistication of transnational networks (e.g.
> organised crime networks), which can evade, penetrate and fight the state
> very effectively.
>
> bw
> Andy
>
> _______________________________________________
> p2presearch mailing list
> p2presearch at listcultures.org
> http://listcultures.org/mailman/listinfo/p2presearch_listcultures.org
>
>


-- 
Work: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dhurakij_Pundit_University - Research:
http://www.dpu.ac.th/dpuic/info/Research.html - Think thank:
http://www.asianforesightinstitute.org/index.php/eng/The-AFI

P2P Foundation: http://p2pfoundation.net  - http://blog.p2pfoundation.net

Connect: http://p2pfoundation.ning.com; Discuss:
http://listcultures.org/mailman/listinfo/p2presearch_listcultures.org

Updates: http://del.icio.us/mbauwens; http://friendfeed.com/mbauwens;
http://twitter.com/mbauwens; http://www.facebook.com/mbauwens
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listcultures.org/pipermail/p2presearch_listcultures.org/attachments/20091028/158cd4d3/attachment.html>