Chomsky on Intellectual Property

http://groups.google.com/group/alt.fan.noam-chomsky/msg/12c9b62ed459d63d?pli=1

by __hudson__ • 15 years ago

181 127 15 years ago

groups.google.com

rick8882• 15 years ago

"I mean, Einstein didn't have any intellectual property rights on relativity theory."

I'm fine with scientific facts not being patented, but something like Photoshop or Microsoft windows isn't scientific fact.

tjr• 15 years ago

How about file formats? Graphics manipulation algorithms? Where's the line between things like relativity theory and things like Photoshop?

rbranson2• 15 years ago

Relativity theory isn't patentable as there is no business model which could commercialize it.

Patents were originally intended as a way to encourage innovation because they created a give and take relationship between private interests and the public. The inventor had to disclose the invention's inner workings, and in exchange they were given a relatively short period of exclusivity. The public benefited because the innovation was fully disclosed for others to dissect and re-apply some of those techniques and processes to new inventions.

In the current modern US copyright & patent system, where very few patents actually cover true innovation, there is little public benefit beyond this notion that protecting the inventor from copycats increases their likelihood to innovate. Of course, there is no scientific process that has lead people to this conclusion, so it is honestly an educated guess at best.

The dominant thinking in the business world seems to be that overall execution has become the dominant factor in commercial success and not a particular single innovation. Protecting these interests provides little benefit to anyone besides IP attorneys.

rick8882• 15 years ago

"How about file formats? Graphics manipulation algorithms? "

If Einstein wouldn't have come up with his theory, someone else would have. Those properties aren't going to change.

Photoshop, file formats, and algorithms are unique to the individual/individuals that created them.

eyeforgotmyname2• 15 years ago

It's ironic that Einstein couldn't file a patent on relativity.

angus775• 15 years ago

To whoever downvoted this:

I think eyeforgotmyname was saying it was ironic considering Einstein worked in a patent office, not that he thought Einstein should have been able to patent it.

It was a joke. You were supposed to laugh.

Tycho3• 15 years ago

Most of the serious research and development, the hard part of it, is funded by the public. In fact most of the economy comes out of public expenditures through the state system, which is the source of most innovation and development. I mean computers, the internet. Just go through the range, it's all coming out of the state system primarily. There is research and development in the corporate system, some, but it's mostly at the marketing end. And the same is true of drugs.

maxharris12• 15 years ago

the hard part of it

This is absolutely false. I agree that discovery isn't easy, but you know what's even harder? The other 90% of the work needed to finish it and make it a reliable product. Chomsky trivializes the work of synthetic organic chemists, the engineers that set up and keep production lines going, researchers that test the drugs, and so on.

In software terms, this is like saying that all the hard work is done because someone banged out a prototype over the weekend. It's full of bugs and doesn't have the features people want yet.

If you believe that Chomsky's right, try running a startup while holding his idea. You'll fail, or you'll discover that it's not easy and reject his idea.

entangld2• 15 years ago

He's talking about research. You're talking about development.

None of these things are exactly easy, but at least with development you're building toward something.

hasenj7• 15 years ago

Try running a startup without Linux and the entire open source ecosystem.

nickpinkston• 15 years ago

If you're talking about keeping production lines going - this isn't really part of what no-IP would do. Someone would still need to operate and maintain production and distribution - however the competition to do this would drive costs down dramatically.

Also, high margins and no competitive pressure make research and dev methods stagnant - no IP + public research funding and FDA subsidies seems like a more effective system to me.

calibraxis3• 15 years ago

Blue-sky research is much higher risk. Without the shorter term payoff that corporations seek. It's reasonable to call an endeavor "harder" when it's less certain of success. Particularly when we're talking about real innovations like computers and the internet, versus a company hiring a couple guys to toss together a "minimal viable product" with PHP.

(If that description of corporate productization sounds unfair, I think it's closer to the mark than saying basic research is analogous to "someone banged out a prototype over the weekend".)

When it's able to be productized, that's when corporations come along. This is well known. (http://www.nytimes.com/2005/04/02/technology/02darpa.html)

ashconnor• 15 years ago

Chomsky trivializes the work of synthetic organic chemists, the engineers that set up and keep production lines going, researchers that test the drugs, and so on.

Because private companies would be willing to throw money into the wind to fund research. The concept's been proven, the risky part is over; although not necessarily the difficult part.

dexen7• 15 years ago

> In software terms, this is like saying that all the hard work is done because someone banged out a prototype over the weekend. It's full of bugs and doesn't have the features people want yet.

That's the early Google, Facebook etc. for you. Of course most of such ventures fail, but sometimes they get it done and gain traction.

I guess his argument is based on the premise it takes organization on scale of a state (country) to be able to organize broad-sweeping long-term research in areas that don't look promising at first. Without the sight of immediately sellable product or service. Businesses seem to be more oriented towards research that improves incrementally something that's already somewhat known.

I was going to write Bell Labs were one of notable exceptions, but then I realized they got much state funding for research related to military.

davidw14• 15 years ago

I think there is a [citation needed] there, but I also think he's willfully ignoring that productizing stuff is difficult.

Here's a great example of "public goods" that's near and dear to my heart: I love Linux, and there's no way in hell I'd use anything else. However, it's hard to argue that it sets the pace in terms of usability. Commercial operations produced easier systems for the end user well before Linux got there.

Why? Because they got paid for their results, and they got paid because of intellectual property. And as they got paid, they sunk part of that money back into research and development into improving the experience. There is a comparatively tiny amount of money going into the Linux Desktop.

DuncanIdaho• 15 years ago

The fact that producing stuff is difficult is enough to create an opportunity. If you produce better stuff (price,quality,marketing) you get to sell more and earn more. This gives you an opportunity to invest more in to the system. So you get to be ahead of your competitors. And everybody gets to be ahead as side result with time as well, thus you need to keep investing and keep on trying.

The problem is that some industries feel entitled to retire on mohito island while humanity gets to drag them along.

Also most of people using and developing Linux live off it - one way or another. I'm certain that professional/user ratio is in strong favour of Linux.

Idea that companies put money into R&D solely due to intellectual property, or that they only make enough to put something into R&D because of IP is wrong.

Look at some of the most successful businesses in the world. Selling sugared water, selling grilled pieces of meat, selling washing machines and various appliances, selling pieces of wood that fit together,...

Taking whatever IP from them wouldn't change their R&D and other forward looking spending activities much.

And don't come back to me with low tech/high tech argument. High tech production is even harder, that's why those who know how to do it and keep successfully investing into getting beter, get to run the show. Those who don't know how to improve and those who want to collect tax on everybody forever should just roll over and die.

ZeroGravitas2• 15 years ago

They think they'll get paid more because of IP that'll give them a monopoly if they hit the lock-in jackpot and one or two of the many competitors does get paid in that way, while the others fail. Remove the IP and you remove the lottery-style incentive structure and then you'll see investment in the smaller, but still commercially relevant returns available from building on open systems. (This is similar to massive investment in minor, but patentable, changes to existing drugs rather than investment in novel, but less profitable drugs).

bostonscott• 15 years ago

There's false premises in that argument.

If Chomsky wants to argue that government funded research is the source of innovation, then he should also ask, what is the source of government funds?

Government takes dollars from those who earn it, and spends it according to collective values at best, or in favor of corrupt interests at worst.

Who is to say that if those dollars were left in the hands of those who earned them, they wouldn't be spent more wisely?

6ren• 15 years ago

He doesn't cite many examples/sources, but the PARC lab and spin-offs seem to be a huge exception: laser printer, mouse, windows, postscript, ethernet.

Granted, they're not fundamental science, but they were, at least, innovations.

monochromatic• 15 years ago

Does anyone seriously still listen to Chomsky? This guy has zero credibility as far as I'm concerned.

weego• 15 years ago

I listen and tend to agree with a large swathes of what he says, though not everything.

I've yet to come across a reason to doubt his credibility, but I'd be interested in reading a counter point to his arguments if you have some sources.

dasil003• 15 years ago

Chomsky is just one man, and thus subject to the same intellectual failings as other individuals, but his integrity is well beyond the vast majority of people with a pulpit. You should definitely read and consider what he has to say, because otherwise you may be hearing only lobbyists' perspectives.

wladimir• 15 years ago

I find his perspective really refreshing. Most articles that I encounter nowadays are very US-centric, or Europe-centric. They look at the consequences for a certain country or group within it, not the world at large, and are thus very polarized. Chomsky's reasoning feels truly international. And his comments about IP and medicine are appropriate as ever with the ACTA treaty (and sons) being pushed on us all by the US.

I wish there were more people with a clear vision such as his. It could make the world as a whole a better place.

Tycho3• 15 years ago

We certainly wouldn't have had a textile industry. British textiles were way cheaper and better. Actually British textiles were cheaper and better because Britain had crushed Irish and Indian superior textile manufacturers and stolen their techniques. So they were now the preeminent textile manufacturer, by force of course.

Symmetry• 15 years ago

I have no idea what he's talking about here. The British did do a number of horrible things in India and did use force to crush, for example, the Indian shipbuilding industry. They also could have learned a lot from Indian metallurgy if they were a bit less arrogant. But textiles? I guess they did "steal" cotton, but that wasn't really an invention in the sense he's talking about.

ZeroGravitas2• 15 years ago

They "stole" the Paisley pattern:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paisley_(design)

Estragon• 15 years ago

They certainly crushed the Indian textiles industry economically, which speaks to his broader point that the dominant players only talk about free markets etc. when it suits them.

edw519• 15 years ago

First this:

They don't make any economic sense or any other sense.

Then this:

They should be working for the public good. (Applause) And that means it should be available to the public. So...

So...why aren't any of these (his 145 books):

http://www.amazon.com/gp/search/ref=sr_tc_2_0?rh=i%3Astripbo...

in the public domain?

anon1385• 15 years ago

http://chomsky.info/books/counter-revolutionary-violence.htm like this?

or this: http://books.zcommunications.org/chomsky/year/year-overview....

or this: http://books.zcommunications.org/chomsky/sld/sld-contents.ht...

or this: http://books.zcommunications.org/chomsky/rab/rab-contents.ht...

or this: http://books.zcommunications.org/chomsky/ni/ni-contents.html

or this: http://books.zcommunications.org/chomsky/dd/dd-overview.html

or this: http://books.zcommunications.org/chomsky/rc/rc-contents.html

TomOfTTB• 15 years ago

In fairness just because something is published on the web doesn't mean it is in the public domain. A manufacturer can publish blueprints but you can't build and sell an improved version of their product if they have a patent on it.

davidw14• 15 years ago

Even if they were all in the public domain, he's basically "set", being a university professor with tenure.

It would be a less pleasant world where only those with other secure income from other sources could produce information goods.

stephth2• 15 years ago

Putting work into the Public Domain is ironically not the best way to serve the public good. It's much safer to have a permissive license. Chomsky's answer here might have unintentionally passed the wrong idea in that sense.

ez77• 15 years ago

Are there any known cases of works dedicated to the public domain whose access was jeopardized as a result?

cma• 15 years ago

Chomsky is talking about institutional factors. He typically admits he is affected by them the same as anyone else. What kind of readership can a public domain book get? How would publishing it be funded? If it was a success, another publisher could just begin a print run. Old public domain books manage to get published, but, they have the advantage that they don't need to be advertised, have shelf space speculatively bought, etc. etc.

Chomsky also doesn't believe we should have regular property (at least not in the "rights" sense), but he still owns stuff.

angus775• 15 years ago

Any published work is copyrighted by default. Are you aware of Chomsky making any effort to keep his books out of people's hands? Has he sued anyone for copying or distributing his books?

pbhjpbhj2• 15 years ago

>Any published work is copyrighted by default.

But it is easy enough to declaim the restriction to copying if one wishes CC-SA, CopyLeft, CC0¹, PD etc.. Chomsky is likely contractual obligated, at least in part, if he holds a tenured professorship and may not be able to do this without leaving that post.

1 - http://creativecommons.org/choose/zero/

danssig2• 15 years ago

There's always someone trying to make everyone out to be a hypocrite. It is not a conflict to both have a belief and not act within that belief. If the world suddenly started working the way he described and he still tried to sell things he expected others to give away then it would be hypocritical behavior.

numeromancer• 15 years ago

There's always someone trying to make everyone out to be a hypocrite. It is not a conflict to both have a belief and not act within that belief.

It is only not a conflict if you are, in fact, a hypocrite, and do not bother to judge yourself by your own standards.

If the world suddenly started working the way he described and he still tried to sell things he expected others to give away then it would be hypocritical behavior.

This is the shelter that most hypocrites hide under, claiming that they can't possibly be expected to live by their own high ideals until all men are good and fair and wise. It is the claim of every communist dictator who hoards the wealth he denies his citizens, and every capitalist who colludes with government for protectionism and corporate welfare while crying for free-markets, and every cheap preacher who slinks around with prostitutes while bleating about the sexualization of our culture.

If you dedicate yourself to high ideals, then dedicate yourself to them, and show the world that they are ideals that humans can live up to. If you are too enamored of worldly ways to do so, then be willing to forgive others of the same.

The great Oz has spoken.

njharman• 15 years ago

ad hominem much?

iwwr• 15 years ago

This is quite relevant all on its own, even if slightly off-topic:

[the WTO Uruguay agreement is] called a "free trade agreement". It's in fact a highly protectionist agreement. The US is strongly opposed to free trade, just as business leaders are, just as they're opposed to a market economy.

stephth2• 15 years ago

Nice read. I've never read any Chomsky. He mentions inventions related to industries (textiles, steel and pharmaceutical...) and sciences. I'd be curious to read more from him about IP applied to art. Any idea where to look at?

danielsoneg2• 15 years ago

To my knowledge, one of the reasons Universities were granted the right to patent their work was as a defensive measure - work patented at the University was intended to be available to the public, or at least, a whole lot easier to access than work patented by a private entity. The idea was to make the results of publicly funded research more, not less, accessible.

pedrocr• 15 years ago

Comparative advantage is generally not understood. It does not mean that countries only manufacture those things that they are best at. From the piece:

>But those of us who would be here would be pursuing our comparative advantage and exporting fish and fur. That's what economists tell you is right. Pursue your comparative advantage. That was our comparative advantage. We certainly wouldn't have had a textile industry. British textiles were way cheaper and better.

Comparative advantage allows for trade even when one country has an absolute advantage over another. Even if British textiles were better and cheaper than the American ones if America started to produce textiles it could make sense for the British to reduce their textile production if there are other goods they can apply the same resources to that have a higher value than they will pay for the American textiles they are now buying.

The wikipedia page is pretty good at explaining this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparative_advantage

vitaminj• 15 years ago

That's true ONLY IF America started to produce textiles. But the textbook trade models (e.g. Ricardian, Hecksher-Olin, etc) all pretty much recommend that America should just stick to producing fish and fur to maximise its gains from trade, and forget about a homegrown textile industry.

sentinel• 15 years ago

Computers and the internet come out of public expenditure through the state system? Where did he get that fact from?

pathjumper• 15 years ago

Here's a different perspective for you guys that is more or less in agreement with Chomsky's:

The universe does not recognize our artificial restrictions on information.

This is inherently why people generally think it's ok to violate the copyrights of others. Because we know, and the universe knows that nothing was taken away from them. The restrictions are entirely artifical and designed to do nothing except create an enormous inequality between the the "owner" of the information, and everyone else. That's the sole purpose. These Imaginary Stuff owners then use this disparity (a legal fiction entirely) to generate massive wealth based on entirely contrived circumstances.

Since the dawn of speech nothing like this has existed because it never made sense. Anything one person said could be repeated by anyone who could remembered it. So when did information suddenly become ownable? It's a nonsensical legal fiction of epic proportions.

I contend that if the information is publicly available, you no longer own it. This is how the universe operates. Fans of Imaginary Stuff rights will not be able to get their way for long. Or rather, they shouldn't be allowed to use the legal system to enforce their artificial disparity. If you want to own information, keep it a secret. Otherwise, it's everyone's.

Another way of looking at it is, if you want to get paid for good information/content/art production, you're going to have to do what every other human does, continue working even after producing great works. You should be valued for your talent, and ability to produce from it over and over - just like everyone else. A bricklayer doesn't lay one brick really well and then charge everyone to use it daily. The value should be placed on the ability, not the product, since there's no physical product at all really. The slight exception being physical works of art etc, but then they're not just information, so the rules I'm talking about do not entirely apply. Photographic reproductions are information, but an original work in physical form is still valuable for being the first and physical.

What do you other smart folks think about this? I know a lot of us work in information production in some form. I myself am a software engineer, so I'm not just trying to take from everyone else and pretend the rule doesn't apply to me because I'm not an information/content producer. I actually am. So this hits me hardest too.

Chomsky on Intellectual Property

Related Stories