[p2p-research] Non digital commons a lot more complicated than Free Software

[Dennis E. Hamilton]

Not to make too much of a point about it, but

1. The original Internet development was government-funded, but development
was definitely done by companies (BBN to name one important one) as well as
other institutions and contributors.  The backbone was very expensive to
operate and it was (and remains) hardly a free good when viewed as a
complete system.

2. Microsoft purchased the base for what became PC-DOS and then MS-DOS from
another company, not from a public source.  They paid for someone else's IP
as a means of making rapid delivery.  Of course, some early operating
systems, including the predecessors of CP/M and PC-DOS, were developed
before copyright on software was recognized in the US (or anywhere else), so
a great deal of the IP around implementations was preserved through
licensing, bundling, and trade-secret arrangements.  For example, mainframe
computer leases tended to have hold-harmless assurances with regard to IP
infringement actions against technology applied in the computer and its
vendor-provided software.  There were a great variety of
technology-transfer/-sharing arrangements, not the least of which was the
misappropriation of weakly-protectable IP (especially source code), a
problem that was aggravated with the advent of personal computers when
running code could also be freely exchanged (a precursor to the current
situation with digital media for video and audio).  

3. There was a counterpart of open-source development back into the
beginning of the digital computer era, and there was a great deal of
freeware as well as available source code.  I worked in such an environment
when I got my start in 1958.  There were also developments involving
coalitions of firms, some of whom contributed voluntarily in order to have
benefit of the community result.  The early releases of the FORTRAN compiler
were representative of that kind of cooperative arrangement.

But technology and non-technology firms seemed always drawn to finding a way
to monetize and recoup some of their investment in software while also
limiting its availability to competitors.

There are still community developments that are undertaken in order to
produce a common good that all in the community will benefit from but for
which it is not worthwhile for any player to develop exclusively and exploit
commercially -- the economics don't work.  I am sure there are also many
developments that do not occur because the community is unwilling to form
around the activity and no one sees a benefit to taking it on voluntarily.
Using an open-source licensing and development model has taken considerable
friction out of such efforts, but they still depend on the presence of
sufficient good will and labor investment by someone to achieve critical
mass as a successful effort.

I add these remarks as a reminder that the treatment of IP is not so
black-and-white and the situation has always been mixed, although the
proportions alter over time and among different communities of interest.
Then there are commoditization, complements, and externalities to consider.

I am not making a pro-IP argument, simply addressing the historical
situation.  I am, nevertheless, suspicious of claims that IP (and other
property) rights are confirmed to be always innovation-detrimental.  The
landscape seems too diverse for that claim to stand unchallenged.

 - Dennis

-----Original Message-----
From: p2presearch-bounces at listcultures.org
[mailto:p2presearch-bounces at listcultures.org] On Behalf Of Michel Bauwens
Sent: Wednesday, December 08, 2010 00:28
To: M. Fioretti; p2p research network
Subject: Re: [p2p-research] Non digital commons a lot more complicated than
Free Software

[ ... ]

both historical and contermporary evidence, nearly all research that
has been done about is, suggests IP and patents are a drain on
innovation,

we also know that the internet was NOT developed by companies, that
Microsoft got its operating system from somewhere else etc ..

On 12/8/10, M. Fioretti <mfioretti at nexaima.net> wrote:
[ ... ]
> as far as **I** am concerned, I have never hidden behind
> immateriality. ME, I've always known very well that the so-called
> "cyberspace" is a very physical thing, and that things like the Free
> SW movement or even these chats we're having are only possible because
> personal computers are affordable, that is only because a few
> multinationals use patents and consume a lot of physical resources to
> produce them in huge quantities
[ ... ]