See also The Economist:
http://www.economist.com/agenda/displayStory.cfm?story_id=3554542 (01)
Henry (02)
On Wed, 2005-01-12 at 16:26, Peter P. Jones wrote:
> [1] http://www.ibm.com/news/us/en/2005/01/patents.html
> List of patents: http://www.ibm.com/ibm/licensing/patents/pledgedpatents.pdf
>
> [2]
>
>http://www-1.ibm.com/press/PressServletForm.wss?TemplateName=ShowPressReleaseTemplate&SelectString=t1.docunid=7473
> <quote>
> "True innovation leadership is about more than just the numbers of
> patents granted. It's about innovating to benefit customers, partners
> and society," said Dr. John E. Kelly, IBM senior vice president,
> Technology and Intellectual Property. "Continuing IBM's legacy of
> leadership in the strategic use of intellectual property, our pledge
> today is the beginning of a new era in how IBM will manage intellectual
> property to benefit our partners and clients. Unlike the preceding
> Industrial Economy, the Innovation Economy requires that intellectual
> property be deployed for more than just providing the owner with freedom
> of action and income generation."
> </quote>
>
> I accept that this is possibly a classic 'open-sourcing by business'
> manoeuvre made in a new explicit style, but I'm not sure I accept the
> premise that it is necessarily bad or inadequate yet.
>
> --
> Peter
>
>
> Gerry Gleason wrote:
> > On 2005.01.12 09:53 Murray Altheim wrote:
> >
> >> Gerry Gleason wrote:
> >
> > [...]
> >
> >>> I guess one open question is how we should respond as advocates of
> >>> another way. I'm quite confident that "commons based
> >>> peer-production" can outcompete traditional profit driven
> >>> corporations, but we still lack a sufficient proof of concept. Of
> >>> course, this also assumes a level playing field ...
> >>
> >>
> >> Actually, I think there is a very strong proof in the success of linux.
> >> Had anyone fifteen or twenty years ago thought that it would win out
> >> over proprietary software, they'd been locked up as a nut. But IBM,
> >> Sun and others are gradually moving towards using linux in their
> >> product line, and as linux continues to improve it will continue to
> >> erode Microsoft's bottom line. By the same token, Mac OS X has an
> >> BSD framework underneath it too. Maybe this is just a proof that a
> >> unix/linux OS is better, but I think it has a lot more to do with the
> >> public development community beating the proprietary one. Thousands
> >> of hands are always better than a hundred, and open sharing is always
> >> better than secrecy. For example, you don't have to worry too much
> >> about leaking secrets if your code is already public.
> >
> >
> > No question that Linux is a success story, and Apache is probably
> > equally important. On the other hand, I still don't see these examples
> > being used and extended the way they could be. Relatively few make a
> > living off this sort of work, and it doesn't generate the sort of
> > surplus that would allow the sort of public advocacy campaigns that
> > could counter the corporate messages in the political field.
> >
> >> [...] but we have the power of the people in this one, big time. I
> >> would say that the open source community may not be organized, but we
> >> represent an enormous threat to the powers at be, otherwise they wouldn't
> >> be waging such a war against intellectual property right now. They know
> >> their time is up unless they can lock everything down soon.
> >
> >
> > Unfortunately, at the moment it looks like they may succeed ;-) Only
> > half-joking, I suspect they way out may involve them first succeeding,
> > which just locks up the entire global economic system in a self-emposed
> > grid-lock, and only then does the new era emerge from a crisis in the
> > dominant system.
> >
> > Best strategy is to be ready with alternatives when the old answers fail
> > and get them implemented before the whole thing falls into chaos.
> >
> >> Microsoft will go down in flames, it's only a matter of time. They
> >> probably won't disappear, but their world is ending, just as the
> >> world of oil production will end, probably within most of our
> >> lifetimes. And with that: cheap plastics and petroleum-based resins.
> >
> >
> > That's been my prediction for quite some time. Thought it would have
> > started by now, but it can't really get going during a period of
> > retrenchment. Things are still pretty locked down here in the States.
> >
> > Gerry
> > (03)
--
This message is archived at: (04)
http://collab.blueoxen.net/forums/cgi-bin/mesg.cgi?a=yak&i=1105672723.3105.0.camel@localhost.localdomain (05)
|