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

[Michel Bauwens]

I agree with your points Dennis, I was focusing on the other side as
counter-argument to  the argument that we have to thanks patents,

but indeed, the internet is the combined result of government funding and
academic research, open communities, and businesses,

I find it very unlikely though, that companies would have developed an open
internet, and not a series of walled gardens, on their own; of course,
patents are a fact and a reality, but given the evidence of research on
their role in innovation, the historical fact that innovation occured before
patents, I find it hard to see them as 'essential' ingredients and since qua
non condition,

Michel

On Thu, Dec 9, 2010 at 2:06 AM, Dennis E. Hamilton
<dennis.hamilton at acm.org>wrote:

> 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
> [ ... ]
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> p2presearch mailing list
> p2presearch at listcultures.org
> http://listcultures.org/mailman/listinfo/p2presearch_listcultures.org
>



-- 
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

Think tank: http://www.asianforesightinstitute.org/index.php/eng/The-AFI
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listcultures.org/pipermail/p2presearch_listcultures.org/attachments/20101209/802c8fe0/attachment.html>