Comments on: Intellectual squatting, the fallacy of the origin and the slow painful death of IP http://www.toddero.com/2009/04/intellectual-squatting-the-fallacy-of-the-origin-and-the-slow-painful-death-of-ip/ Mon, 06 Sep 2010 08:44:25 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.7 hourly 1 By: musings of an itinerant lover» Blog Archive » The Entrepreneur’s Plague http://www.toddero.com/2009/04/intellectual-squatting-the-fallacy-of-the-origin-and-the-slow-painful-death-of-ip/comment-page-1/#comment-159 musings of an itinerant lover» Blog Archive » The Entrepreneur’s Plague Fri, 08 May 2009 19:11:14 +0000 http://www.toddero.com/?p=28#comment-159 [...] that holds ideas back lest somebody else take them and run with them (note me thoughts on intellectual squatting). I had the fortune of receiving some timely assistance in musing over this topic as in the last [...] [...] that holds ideas back lest somebody else take them and run with them (note me thoughts on intellectual squatting). I had the fortune of receiving some timely assistance in musing over this topic as in the last [...]

]]> By: Jalal http://www.toddero.com/2009/04/intellectual-squatting-the-fallacy-of-the-origin-and-the-slow-painful-death-of-ip/comment-page-1/#comment-132 Jalal Wed, 29 Apr 2009 16:58:58 +0000 http://www.toddero.com/?p=28#comment-132 I think this is a really fascinating concept with benefits, IMHO, not only for a future civilization where competition and cooperation operate in balance, but also, IMHO for the current industrial practices and economic models. If invention and innovation is no longer a holy grail by which untold can be realized, IMHO, business will be forced to focus on implementation: deeds and not words. That the development of products may slow and the flow of ideas increase, IMHO, may provide the masses of humanity more time to adjust, mentally and ethically, to material advances rather than being swept along by them. You have my permission to begin implementing the necessary changes at the highest level. Also, thanks for introducing me to the acronym, IMHO. It is, IMHO, as potentially useful as it is potentially obnoxious, IMHO. Two traits that, IMHO, are really fun to combine. I think this is a really fascinating concept with benefits, IMHO, not only for a future civilization where competition and cooperation operate in balance, but also, IMHO for the current industrial practices and economic models. If invention and innovation is no longer a holy grail by which untold can be realized, IMHO, business will be forced to focus on implementation: deeds and not words. That the development of products may slow and the flow of ideas increase, IMHO, may provide the masses of humanity more time to adjust, mentally and ethically, to material advances rather than being swept along by them.

You have my permission to begin implementing the necessary changes at the highest level.

Also, thanks for introducing me to the acronym, IMHO. It is, IMHO, as potentially useful as it is potentially obnoxious, IMHO. Two traits that, IMHO, are really fun to combine.

]]> By: Pedraum Pardehpoosh http://www.toddero.com/2009/04/intellectual-squatting-the-fallacy-of-the-origin-and-the-slow-painful-death-of-ip/comment-page-1/#comment-75 Pedraum Pardehpoosh Mon, 06 Apr 2009 20:57:10 +0000 http://www.toddero.com/?p=28#comment-75 Great post Todd. Assuming you are right (and I think you are) that traditional IP laws : "motivate innovation in a fragmented world where we believe that ideas are neatly stacked bricks proposed by individuals whose nature is to be self-maximizing greedy ego-driven cogs whose primary (sole?) incentive is recognition and the pursuit of power. [...] It reflects a particular assumption of human nature that, IMHO, has sat on the throne of truth for far too long without being questioned. It underlies our societal constructs that, IMHO, are crumbling all around us and tearing at their seams." then an interesting conversation might be one centered around what we can do with this knowledge. How can this newly identified "law" be harnessed to maximize change? Creative Commons, the open source movement and FreePatentsOnline are examples of this. For those that haven't already read it, Kevin Kelly's essay about a sustainable business with 1000 tue fans: http://www.kk.org/thetechnium/archives/2008/03/1000_true_fans.php Pedraum Great post Todd.

Assuming you are right (and I think you are) that traditional IP laws :

“motivate innovation in a fragmented world where we believe that ideas are neatly stacked bricks proposed by individuals whose nature is to be self-maximizing greedy ego-driven cogs whose primary (sole?) incentive is recognition and the pursuit of power. [...] It reflects a particular assumption of human nature that, IMHO, has sat on the throne of truth for far too long without being questioned. It underlies our societal constructs that, IMHO, are crumbling all around us and tearing at their seams.”

then an interesting conversation might be one centered around what we can do with this knowledge. How can this newly identified “law” be harnessed to maximize change? Creative Commons, the open source movement and FreePatentsOnline are examples of this.

For those that haven’t already read it, Kevin Kelly’s essay about a sustainable business with 1000 tue fans:

http://www.kk.org/thetechnium/archives/2008/03/1000_true_fans.php

Pedraum

]]> By: modifaeble http://www.toddero.com/2009/04/intellectual-squatting-the-fallacy-of-the-origin-and-the-slow-painful-death-of-ip/comment-page-1/#comment-74 modifaeble Mon, 06 Apr 2009 20:08:54 +0000 http://www.toddero.com/?p=28#comment-74 It is funny that you should bring this topic up (and I don't mean funny haha). Over the last few months, while I analyze the issues with some of the current structures, it always comes back to IP and the patent system. We have chosen a feudal system for our ideas which has only served to advance a few while marginalizing billions of people. We have taken the right to tell people that they are not allowed to imagine anything better for themselves. Unless no one else can demonstrate in court that they thought of it first, and only if they have spent several tens of thousands of dollars to register their ideas with the US patent office. Using, once again, the excuse to maximize profits and lower competition, we have only encourage an incredible litigious structure which muscles entrepreneurs into submission in the same way that land owners did their renters centuries ago. In a way being sued over IP now is that a hostile take over was to the late 80s early 90s. It is almost a business moddle in itself to create spleeper patents and to wait for someone to step on the trap. Once they have, you take the to court and squeeze! This method has only served to protect old and antiquated business models while providing every obstacle to new developments. There might be a couple good things about it... but they are so far in between in these days. The system needs to consider the wellbeing of the whole and not just of the first or the opportune. The open source movement and FreePatentsOnline are just a demonstration of humanities need and wish for this commingling of ideas. ae It is funny that you should bring this topic up (and I don’t mean funny haha). Over the last few months, while I analyze the issues with some of the current structures, it always comes back to IP and the patent system. We have chosen a feudal system for our ideas which has only served to advance a few while marginalizing billions of people.
We have taken the right to tell people that they are not allowed to imagine anything better for themselves. Unless no one else can demonstrate in court that they thought of it first, and only if they have spent several tens of thousands of dollars to register their ideas with the US patent office.
Using, once again, the excuse to maximize profits and lower competition, we have only encourage an incredible litigious structure which muscles entrepreneurs into submission in the same way that land owners did their renters centuries ago. In a way being sued over IP now is that a hostile take over was to the late 80s early 90s. It is almost a business moddle in itself to create spleeper patents and to wait for someone to step on the trap. Once they have, you take the to court and squeeze!
This method has only served to protect old and antiquated business models while providing every obstacle to new developments. There might be a couple good things about it… but they are so far in between in these days.
The system needs to consider the wellbeing of the whole and not just of the first or the opportune.
The open source movement and FreePatentsOnline are just a demonstration of humanities need and wish for this commingling of ideas.
ae

]]> By: Deanstah http://www.toddero.com/2009/04/intellectual-squatting-the-fallacy-of-the-origin-and-the-slow-painful-death-of-ip/comment-page-1/#comment-73 Deanstah Mon, 06 Apr 2009 18:37:42 +0000 http://www.toddero.com/?p=28#comment-73 Hmmmm, Interesting thoughts although it seems some of the core issues are a bit convoluted. I say this because it sounds to advocate for a pot-pouri approach to knowledge and understanding as opposed to a truly integrative epistemology. Clearly the overblown ego driven labyrinth of the who's who of knowledge and ideas can lead to a redundant stranglehold on truthiness. But it doesn't have to be that way. An integrative approach concerns itself much less with ownership than it does with expanding the sphere of understanding. There is a certain danger - it seems to me anyway - in going too far towards denying the contributions of individuals and arguing that the ideal approach is a collective soup of ideas. The question then becomes HOW does one honour, encourage and appreciate excellence without emboldening the ego? In music there is a lot of borrowing of ideas. There is a lot of improvisation and sometimes blatant copying of styles. Did Elvis appear out of no where? Had anyone played that music before? Is there not a necessity to honour the shoulders on whom Elvis stood? Or the Beatles or whomever? To suggest that everything is just a free for all and that thought is merely a pool where ideas can be deposited and withdrawn seems a little too extreme. Creativity and originality do exist. What appears to be necessary - rather than denying excellence - is to radically reshape the paradigm of how knowledge and ideas are understood. The constraints of ownership, hyper-valuation of the special, and a competitive mindset of out proving or out lasting the other - these definitely present hurdles to be overcome. An integrative paradigm appreciates truth - and the multiplicity of sources that shine a light on what is known are always valued and honoured. To pursue excellence BUT NOT pursue preference and distinction... this is the art of integrative thought. Any ideas? Hmmmm,
Interesting thoughts although it seems some of the core issues are a bit convoluted. I say this because it sounds to advocate for a pot-pouri approach to knowledge and understanding as opposed to a truly integrative epistemology.

Clearly the overblown ego driven labyrinth of the who’s who of knowledge and ideas can lead to a redundant stranglehold on truthiness. But it doesn’t have to be that way. An integrative approach concerns itself much less with ownership than it does with expanding the sphere of understanding. There is a certain danger - it seems to me anyway - in going too far towards denying the contributions of individuals and arguing that the ideal approach is a collective soup of ideas. The question then becomes HOW does one honour, encourage and appreciate excellence without emboldening the ego?

In music there is a lot of borrowing of ideas. There is a lot of improvisation and sometimes blatant copying of styles. Did Elvis appear out of no where? Had anyone played that music before? Is there not a necessity to honour the shoulders on whom Elvis stood? Or the Beatles or whomever?

To suggest that everything is just a free for all and that thought is merely a pool where ideas can be deposited and withdrawn seems a little too extreme.

Creativity and originality do exist. What appears to be necessary - rather than denying excellence - is to radically reshape the paradigm of how knowledge and ideas are understood.

The constraints of ownership, hyper-valuation of the special, and a competitive mindset of out proving or out lasting the other - these definitely present hurdles to be overcome.

An integrative paradigm appreciates truth - and the multiplicity of sources that shine a light on what is known are always valued and honoured.

To pursue excellence BUT NOT pursue preference and distinction… this is the art of integrative thought.

Any ideas?

]]>