Slashdot Mirror

Given the rate of accelerating change, this sounds like a low-priority text, as it doesn't address the more important shift in business ownership/relationship. Customers are empowered by technology, and ultimately they will demand to be part "owners" in their businesses. After all, customers provide attention, info, and cash. People who can afford to buy stock in Amazon, E-bay, Yahoo, AOL etc are already "owning" a piece of the action, and thus further motivated to trade in "their" channels.

Still, the current IPO model seems like a gigantic (and breakable) chain of greedy fools. Intelligence will route around it, using the far more powerful "chaordic" model envisioned by Dee Hock and partly implemented by Visa. (a huge info-biz w/ 30 yrs experience growing 20% annually). Visa defines "ownership" as non-transferable "right to participate". Participants cooperate and compete for relationships, not ownership. The chaordic model is a decentralized magnet for the greatest resouce of all: human ingenuity.

Regarding "efficiency".. it's probably over-rated: "As information and intelligence become the domain of computers, society will place new value on the one human ability that can't be automated: emotion. Imagination, myth, ritual -- the language of emotion -- will affect everything from our purchasing decisions to how well we work with others.. ideas like quality, efficiency, and reliability will no longer sell products."

How well we work with others (trade) has a lot more to do with "relationship" than "ownership".

Sun's aim is to first achieve ubiquity, and then leverage proprietary advantage

oops! maybe not.. Sun might *not* want to be a nasty bully like Microsoft because that would very bad for Sun's brand name(TM). And of all the hairballed IP complexity SUNW is compelled to manage, Sun's Trademark is the most simple, meaningful and valuable of their (non-human) assets.

Which leads to two points:

b.) The attempt to "own" "open" software standards is seriously risky to Sun's good reputation. Could a smarter risk prove more rewarding? With a reconcieved software "ownership" model, Bill Joy is certainly smart enough invent a way so jini can "make money", and Sun can further its reputation as a company that "gets it".

a.) "Chaordic®" is a registered trademark of the Chaordic Alliance. They might not be policing it, and that might be a Good Thing(TM). Still, it's a most meaningful word, and it's in everyone's best interest *not* to dilute it with improper use. Including Sun's [see b.)]

Richard Gabriel's claim that the SCSL is the legal instrument that creates the "chaord" seems to misrepresent the process so generously outlined by Dee Hock. How so? Well answer this: how did Sun arrive at this legal document? Why does it catch all this flak? Are "all affected parties" included in this week's process to arrive at the democratic principles by which all changes to jini are made? How is "ownership" equitably distributed among all jini/java participants? What or whose purpose does the SCSL serve?

Please correct me if I'm wrong, but it appears that SUNW is trying to impose centralized top-down command-and-control authority, quite contrary to decentralized chaordic principles. Calling it "chaordic" without qualification adds insult to injury. Answer this: how would Sun react to an analogous misuse of Sun's proprietary trademark? I'd really like an answer.

Still, it's extremely encouraging that a leading software company like Sun is taking inspiration from the chaordic model only partly realized by VISA. Rewards will be great for any company that honestly embraces it. But taking this step half-heartedly while abusing a valuable trademark will fool none but Sun(TM).

CHAORD = pleasant B.S.? Please...

A Chaord exists in the phase between CHAos and ORDer. It's any complex, adaptive, self-regulating system capable of constant learning and evolution. Like VISA. Like the Internet. Like Linux. Unlike any "for-stock" corporations.

Allow me to repeat:

VISA. ($1.2 trillion in sales last year.) It's an info-age corporation with 30 years experience, growing 20% every year past booms bubbles busts bear bulls. No IPO's, take-overs, buy-outs, trade-outs, shake-outs, raids. Why? It's owned by its members. Shared in "non-transferable rights of participation". Dee Hock, who founded VISA, wanted to extend ownership to merchants and cardholders, but it wasn't possible at the time. Had it been, he believes it would be four times more powerful today.

Key to Visa's success is chaos/organized *open* structure that attracts the by far most valuable (and least used) resource on earth: human ingenuity.

call it "chaorganization". read about it here here here

SCSL will have great difficulty enabling any true chaord, because in the end, their "community" is responsible Sun's shareholding owners. Sun's aim is to first achieve ubiquity, and then leverage proprietary advantage. It's a shame, because JINI, especially, seems really cool.

CHAORD is the keyword to the most fruitful integration of "open source" and profitable business in the long run. RHAT missed it. Andover.net missed it. (chaords don't do IPO's) It's shocking that so few .rso/ know what the word means. But hopefully, that will change =P

Is it my imagination or are companies rushing to patent concepts which are more marketing features than any real "innovations". If that is the case, then the market is the place to decide, not the legal systme. While it may be disappointing to the class of patent lawyers, is it too radical a concept for companies to be competing on their execution rather than trying to spoil the ground around them? People might be interested in an article which points out the benefits of cooperation rather than the paranoid dog-eat-dog world. Perhaps too much competition indicates that the field is not big enough (ie profitable) to support that many companies and its a signal that resources are better deployed elsewhere (one reason why capitalism is more economically efficient).

One problem with governments is that they can effectively define monopolies. Could the patent system be replaced by a more market driven system based on property rights? One can point to the media industry where you have song-writer creative rights which require recognition and further payment from films and other down-stream activities. Perhaps OpenSource software could provide certification rights or distribution rights? It would certainly benefit companies who are thinking about the opensource route but are relunctant to see the fruits of their efforts being appropriated without fair compensation. At the very least, it would reduce overheads due to non-core activities (e.g. legal liability) and perhaps let smaller firms florish.

LL

"the value of a company in the future will be tied to how much value it can offer people on the outside, rather than how much value it can extract from people on the outside. In other words, can companies make it fun, interesting, challenging, and rewarding for people who are not their employees to contribute their time and ideas?"

Huh? Sounds like companies will still need to "extract value" from people on the "outside". Sounds kinda tricky. If a company wants me to contribute time and ideas, it better share some "ownership". How?

example: VISA. ($1.2 trillion in sales last year.) It's an info-age corporation with 30 years experience, growing 20% every year past booms bubbles busts bear bulls. No IPO's, take-overs, buy-outs, trade-outs, shake-outs, raids. Why? It's owned by its members. Shared in "non-transferable rights of participation". Dee Hock, who founded VISA, wanted to extend ownership to merchants and cardholders, but it wasn't possible at the time. Had it been, he believes it would be four times more powerful today.

Key to Visa's success is chaos/organized *open* structure that attracts the by far most valuable (and least used) resource on earth: human ingenuity. call it "chaorganization". read about it here here here

There is in fact a open-ish member-owned capitalist business that grows 20% annually, past $1.2 thousand billion (trillion) ((no kidding)) in 1998 sales. (IMO RHAT and /. may have a tough time mixing private stock ownership with open source community ethics/compensation models.) Alternative?

VISA has been an info-age corporation for 30 years, now, growing 20% annually past booms bubbles busts bear bulls. No take-overs, buy-outs, trade-outs, shake-outs, raids. How? It's owned by its members. Shared in "non-transferable rights of participation". Dee Hock, who founded it, wanted to extend ownership to merchants and cardholders, but it wasn't possible at the time. Had it been, he believes it would be four times more powerful today.

Key to Visa's success is chaos/organized *open* structure that attracts the by far most valuable (and least used) resource on earth: human ingenuity. Call it "chaorganization". Read about it here here here

..and they won't have to cut their ear off and die before getting noticed or paid.

"As information and intelligence become the domain of computers, society will place new value on the one human ability that can't be automated: emotion. Imagination, myth, ritual -- the language of emotion -- will affect everything from our purchasing decisions to how well we work with others.. Ideas like quality, efficiency, and reliability will no longer sell products. In the end, I'll buy a phone because of its color, if that's what moves me."

"Any job that can be measured for productivity probably should be eliminated. The wonderful news about the Network Economy is that it plays right into human strengths. Repetition, sequels, copies, and automation all tend toward the free, while the innovative, original, and imaginative all soar in value"

No offense, folks, but i41 can't wait until this communications revolution can more easily tap the creative potential of non-technical people (like yours flamebaitly true:*).

*I can't think of a single corporate entity that's truly likely to be around ten years from now. I mean, without being bought out, re-named, taken over, acquired, or re-engineered, or moving into a new net-based business model.

Try thinking about VISA. ($1.2 tah-rillion in sales last year.) It's an info-age corporation that's done just fine for 30 years, growing 20% every year past booms bubbles busts bear bulls. No take-overs, buy-outs, trade-outs, shake-outs, raids. Why? How? It's owned by its members. Shared in "non-transferable rights of participation". Dee Hock, who founded it, wanted to extend ownership to merchants and cardholders, but it wasn't possible at the time. Had it been, he believes it would be four times more powerful today.

Key to Visa's success is chaos/organized *open* structure that attracts the by far most valuable (and least used) resource on earth: human ingenuity.

call it "chaorganization". read about it here here here

note: http://www.fastcompany.com/online/05/deehock.html link currently /.'d..

As you invoke links between free-thinking geeks and proprietary-minded suits, does the code word "choardic"(#3;) arise in any of your dialogues? Could creative freedom and cooperation enforced by "open source" also inform actual corporate by-laws, (sort of like Dee Hock's 25% implemented code for Visa International?). Are they conceivable, corporations that don't suck?

"I guess we are about 15-20 years (maybe sooner) away from having a few problems with machines making unauthorized (by any human) decisions that could go against humans in general. At the rate things are changing, I would feel that in 30-40 years time things will be out of our hands."

kinda scary if, in fact, "war is quickly becoming a game only machines can play". Then again, if "artificial" intelligence is a belittling name for it, and we find ourselves blocking its progress, then maybe it'll subjugate us and serve its real host with a favor in kind. Here we haggle over our "intellect" as "property", while we actually manage our "property" (as in coastal real estate) with so little intelligence*. Or maybe trading more ideas we'll dump less industrial filth, and we'll get smart enough to leapfrog over the *pending antarctic melt down. Who the hell knows?

It is very difficulty to classify the intelligence of Deep Blue. Its main advantage appeared to be that it could process information at a much faster rate than Kasparov. Also, unlike Kasparov, it did not whine and grumble when it lost.

My beef with the in-awed worship of "machine intelligence" (as in the age of"spiritual machines") is that the two bits gurus rarely refer to "emotional intelligence", (which may represent a healthy portion of the 90% of our "brain" we don't use. Other human cultural traditions, such as the Tibetan Buddhist, have copious libraries full of recorded learning about states of feeling, compassion, awareness and consciousness which the analytic Western tradition seems to ignore if not repress. Will "intelligence" outsmart us in a few short years with simple yes or no answers? Maybe or maybe not:)

On that note, apparently Deep Dark Blue is still kinda dumb when playing more binary and ancient human bored games like Korean shogi or Chinese go. "Deep Blue beat Kasparov by plotting 14 moves ahead, but a good shogi program would require a computer to read at least 20 moves ahead - professional shogi players can think 30 - 40 moves ahead.. Another lure for programmers is the ancient Chinese game of go, which is even harder for computers than shogi.." - latimes 990819A ..

Sure, just a couple more exponential steps up mount moore's law, but until we let eugenetic engineers hardwire quantum wetware into our loved ones, how will digital decisionmakers get *meaningful* information from human feelings, intuitions, subtle verbal and subtler non-verbal communications, etc.?

IPO's can be used by *people with a surplus of stored value (ca$h or credit) to multiply said surplus as much and as fast as possible and preferably with the least possible effort. If successful, such users earn themselves even more "freedom". (from what: fear? envy? lack of sex appeal? who knows?;) anyways..

Companies which conduct these IPO's exploit such human virtues to raise money (needed to finance international legal and customer aquisition costs.. (remember, you are now an Internet company dotcom(tm), or you are roadkill, and this web grows global fast)). Founders and early investors of Internet companies can also use these IPO's to amass fabulous fortunes for themselves to diversify and secure by investing in new IPO's, politicians , etc.

Now, partially owned by the "public" (see above*), stock prices reflect "our" confidence in the company's potential to profit. Company managers, typically holding stakes of their own, spur the company to attract the highest possible share price. Bottom line. Period.

Whether our grandchildren or theirs will regard this behavior as blatently criminal is another question.

Whether there are alternatives to inequity exacerbating IPO and "street" methods of idea "ownership" is a question I hope /. will address and soon. After all, the MAN(tm), his law(tm) and by-laws(IPO Corp.) are forms of "code", right? (They instruct energetic systems to behave predictably. Or try to.)

So how do IPO's and like ownership models perpetuate "code"? Openly? How does it affect our capacity to trade our learning and creativity? Are there alternatives? Here may be a interesting one:

"Chaord" or "chaordic". [haHA! 2nd post:] It's shocking that Dotters of Slash completely ignore an archetypical business structure that seems to effectively trade creativity and borderlessly: Visa International. Growth? 20% annually, since way before any long boom, past $ 1.2trillion in '98 sales, no end in sight. Method? Better attract human ingenuity, (the most valuable AND abundant resource on the planet.) Blend competition with cooperation, seamlessly. Failure? Dee Hock, who founded Visa, says it could have been four times more powerful if ownership had been extended to merchants and cardholders.. Customers owning the business? COOL! bu..WTF!? How to hack that???

IPO? Stock? Forget it. Visa can't bought, sold, traded or raided. Ownership is shared in non-transferable rights of participation.

It's a very unusual "learning organization": commanders don't control it from the center. Instead, chaos organizes itself at the edges, adapting locally, learning and evolving. Advantages arise out of individual initiative. Ideally, "chaorganizations" are "equitable owned by all participants." Sound like a more "open source" code for biz? IMHO, /. and RHAT and MP3c may have kinda choked if they didn't consider more "open" ownership models, proven successful by Visa..

Anyway, a more positive way to look at IPO's and Public Companies is as forms of "currency". If you have some to spare, you could buy gold, but you have to pay someone to guard it, and gold's value is dropping. You could guard U.S.Gov't(tm) printed dead prezidents, but why do it when your banker will pay you interest to borrow them? Still, who wants a measly 6% when brand-name "currency" like yahoo! or rhat or idealab! may earn me 600%? In this light, it's more rewarding to invest in people and ideas rather than self-obsoleting systems or hoarding stores of value. Currency users now have more options, can better "vote with their pocketbook", perpetuate what they value, and maybe earn themselves some more "freedom". More options, more freedom? Who knows?

links, again, on dee hock, visa, and chaords:
http://www.chaordic.org/chaordic /chaos_is_good.htm
http://www.cascadepolicy.org/dee_hock.htm ">
http://www.fastcompany.com/online /05/deehock.html

First off, CONGRATS! Slashdot is IMHO by the best news forum online. (I hope it gets lots better:) You "owners" certainly deserve to be rewarded, and "thanks" obviously doesn't pay rent or cut cake. Besides, prosperity could be useful, right? But at the possible expense of some trust?

So.. ASK SLASHDOT: are there alternatives to IPOs and Stock Ownership to finance Internet Companies? Was the RHAT IPO as fair as it could have been? Are better methods of "ownership" even conceivable? Can they, in reality, be hacked?

Why does nobody here ever mention chaords? Search /. for the word "CHAORD". Nothing, right? Try "chaordic". So.. these words don't exist here, at least before this post, right?. (ha! first post!:^)

Chaord? (CHAos+ORDer) It's that which "exists in the phase between chaos and order." A chaord is a "self-organizing, self-governing complex capable of constant learning and evolution." Like Linux. Like the Internet. Like money.

Pull out your shiny VISA card. Take a good look. Quite a capitalist tool, huh? Founded in the sixties, VISA International has grown 20% annually, through boom and bust, thick and thin, past $1.2 trillion in 1998 sales (11 zeros), with no end in sight. Hmmm. Wanna buy stock? No way, Jose.

VISA International is "owned" by its members. They share "ownership" by non-transferable rights of participation. (User rights!) These rights can't be bought, sold, traded or raided. Dee Hock, who founded VISA, had hoped to extend this ownership to merchants and cardholders, but it wasn't possible at the time. (Had it been, Mr. Hock believes the VISA community would be four times more powerful! )

Think I'm a wacko AC? Read the links. VISA thrives by an alternative system of "ownership", which, at its core, better motivates and rewards innovation by members. Does this sound a bit more in tune with open source purposes and principles?

As Open Source starts to suck in lawyers and money, how might we addapt? Maybe business planners can consider evidently successful alternatives to IPO's, and the inevitable management of "responsibilities to shareholders." It may be in their interest to do so.

In the end, informed users (customers) don't appreciate being forked over by short-sighted proprietary systems bent on obscene profits. So we then seek options. If we don't find them, we then create them.

- A.C., but not for long :->

"listen to the technology.. find out what it's telling you" -G.Gilder

First off, CONGRATS! Slashdot is IMHO by the best news forum online. (I hope it gets lots better:) You "owners" certainly deserve to be rewarded, and "thanks" obviously doesn't pay rent or cut cake. Besides, prosperity could be useful, right? But at the possible expense of some trust?

So.. ASK SLASHDOT: are there alternatives to IPOs and Stock Ownership to finance Internet Companies? Was the RHAT IPO as fair as it could have been? Are better methods of "ownership" even conceivable? Can they, in reality, be hacked?

Why does nobody here ever mention chaords? Search /. for the word "CHAORD". Nothing, right? Try "chaordic". So.. these words don't exist here, at least before this post, right?. (ha! first post!:^)

Chaord? (CHAos+ORDer) It's that which "exists in the phase between chaos and order." A chaord is a "self-organizing, self-governing complex capable of constant learning and evolution." Like Linux. Like the Internet. Like money.

Pull out your shiny VISA card. Take a good look. Quite a capitalist tool, huh? Founded in the sixties, VISA International has grown 20% annually, through boom and bust, thick and thin, past $1.2 trillion in 1998 sales (11 zeros), with no end in sight. Hmmm. Wanna buy stock? No way, Jose.

VISA International is "owned" by its members. They share "ownership" by non-transferable rights of participation. (User rights!) These rights can't be bought, sold, traded or raided. Dee Hock, who founded VISA, had hoped to extend this ownership to merchants and cardholders, but it wasn't possible at the time. (Had it been, Mr. Hock believes the VISA community would be four times more powerful! )

Think I'm a wacko AC? Read the links. VISA thrives by an alternative system of "ownership", which, at its core, better motivates and rewards innovation by members. Does this sound a bit more in tune with open source purposes and principles?

As Open Source starts to suck in lawyers and money, how might we addapt? Maybe business planners can consider evidently successful alternatives to IPO's, and the inevitable management of "responsibilities to shareholders." It may be in their interest to do so.

In the end, informed users (customers) don't appreciate being forked over by short-sighted proprietary systems bent on obscene profits. So we then seek options. If we don't find them, we then create them.

- A.C., but not for long :->

"listen to the technology.. find out what it's telling you" -G.Gilder

btw, your questions seem to indicate that you already expect a certain answer. why do you do that?

The intent of these systems were to be cheap and user friendly; perhaps the first commercially available computer "appliance"? They were portable, very easy to set up, and completely non-user serviceable. The idea was to send the entire unit back to Monorail (or an authorized service center, I'm sure) for upgrades / maintenance. The other selling point to these were that they were cheap. They sold for just under $1,000 (US).

That $1,000 price tag is the main stumbling point. These things came out before the huge sub-1,000 dollar craze. But although they hit the market first, they were quickly inundated by "white box" competitors all selling cheap PCs. And these computers were standard systems. There was no "sealed box" mentality, proprietary hardware, or strange "Is this really a computer?" look. Also, Monorail's LCD screen was fairly horrid. Their product just didn't compete.

Of course, there's other aspects to this story. Monorail apparently had issues with production and marketing that also caused them to take hits in the industry. At the least, they were able to salvage relationships with major outlets like CompUSA.

If you head to a local CompUSA or look at their web site, you'll see Monorail is still in business. Their current products? "White box" PCs like everyone else. Hmmmm.