This is a rebuttal to "Opening Doors and Smashing Windows: Alternative Measures for Funding Software Development", a white paper by Dean Baker, dates October 2005, and published by the Center for Economic and Policy Research, with which I have deep fundamental disagreement.
- - -
You know, it's been a long time since I took an economics class. But I did take a few, and got a degree in economics. The author of this piece has, it appears to me, never taken one. Or, if he did, he may have decided that the poli-sci classes were more fun. Perhaps he thought Marx and Lenin were Groucho and John, not Karl and Vladimir. He has a PhD in Economics, so I can only assume his article is intentionally disinformative.
I have a LOT of problems with this... even the first few pages. First of all, he proposes that the government create a "Software Development Corps" to create new software, and release that software to the public domain. Imagine the DMV workers reassigned to coding in Java, with all the drive and motivation of the Bureau of Labor Statistics and the incentive to win customers of the U.S. National Archives.
That is not the worst part of his proposal: He suggest the government stop protecting patent and copyright owners from infringements of the Intellectual Property Rights (IPRs) 'because it is inefficient' for distribution of the value of the goods. Substitute "Personal Property Rights" (PPRs) for IPRs in his argument and see how it feels. Think of apartment buildings instead of software products.
He believes the owners of IPRs have a monopoly, and that the monopoly only makes sense if it "provides incentive to innovate". Where do I begin? They don't have a monopoly, any more than the owner of the film "Top Gun" has a monopoly on any movie about flying. Exactly the opposite is true: for example, the existence of the copyright on the successful film "Top Gun" provides the incentive for other movies about flying / personal conflict / close relationships, such as "The Aviator", "FireFox" etc. Arrrgggg... [O.K.... analogy #2: the existence of an apartment building as a successful, commercial, private property enterprise gives an incentive for someone else to build an apartment building with similar or different features that are attractive to renters.]
Monopolies, by nature, have no incentive to innovate. A good example of a bad monopoly is the garbage collection monopoly of most municipalities. The contracting firm pays fees to the municipality, for which it receives a monopoly, and the right to collect fees (and garbage) from residents under the control of the municipality. Those of us who are fortunate enough to live in unincorporated areas of a county have the unique experience of 'competition' and 'choice' for garbage collection services. One container once a week for $50/quarter? how about two container twice a week for $75/quarter? how about one container every two weeks for $25/quarter? Is there an incentive for me to reduce the packaging waste I produce each week if i can save money? Hmmmmm. But, I digress.
Cable television is a good example of a municipal monopoly, but not a perfect one. Not everyone in the municipality is required to have cable television, and there are alternatives providing competitive choices (antenna or dish). The reason the cable franchise was granted was to encourage the cable provider to build the infrastructure necessary to deliver cable television to each home.
The author misses the entire point of the Open Software movement, that there is NOT a need for government intervention and sponsorship of software developers. There are already free and open software that will already do what the author suggests. The government [or industry, or individuals] could certainly discover a desired feature missing from software, and commission the programmers to create that feature. If the software was IPR protected, the IPR owner could decide whether or not to do the work; if the software was Open Software, a variety of programmin
Slashdot Mirror
This is a rebuttal to "Opening Doors and Smashing Windows: Alternative Measures for Funding Software Development", a white paper by Dean Baker, dates October 2005, and published by the Center for Economic and Policy Research, with which I have deep fundamental disagreement. - - - You know, it's been a long time since I took an economics class. But I did take a few, and got a degree in economics. The author of this piece has, it appears to me, never taken one. Or, if he did, he may have decided that the poli-sci classes were more fun. Perhaps he thought Marx and Lenin were Groucho and John, not Karl and Vladimir. He has a PhD in Economics, so I can only assume his article is intentionally disinformative. I have a LOT of problems with this ... even the first few pages. First of all, he proposes that the government create a "Software Development Corps" to create new software, and release that software to the public domain. Imagine the DMV workers reassigned to coding in Java, with all the drive and motivation of the Bureau of Labor Statistics and the incentive to win customers of the U.S. National Archives.
That is not the worst part of his proposal: He suggest the government stop protecting patent and copyright owners from infringements of the Intellectual Property Rights (IPRs) 'because it is inefficient' for distribution of the value of the goods. Substitute "Personal Property Rights" (PPRs) for IPRs in his argument and see how it feels. Think of apartment buildings instead of software products.
He believes the owners of IPRs have a monopoly, and that the monopoly only makes sense if it "provides incentive to innovate". Where do I begin? They don't have a monopoly, any more than the owner of the film "Top Gun" has a monopoly on any movie about flying. Exactly the opposite is true: for example, the existence of the copyright on the successful film "Top Gun" provides the incentive for other movies about flying / personal conflict / close relationships, such as "The Aviator", "FireFox" etc. Arrrgggg... [O.K. ... analogy #2: the existence of an apartment building as a successful, commercial, private property enterprise gives an incentive for someone else to build an apartment building with similar or different features that are attractive to renters.]
Monopolies, by nature, have no incentive to innovate. A good example of a bad monopoly is the garbage collection monopoly of most municipalities. The contracting firm pays fees to the municipality, for which it receives a monopoly, and the right to collect fees (and garbage) from residents under the control of the municipality. Those of us who are fortunate enough to live in unincorporated areas of a county have the unique experience of 'competition' and 'choice' for garbage collection services. One container once a week for $50/quarter? how about two container twice a week for $75/quarter? how about one container every two weeks for $25/quarter? Is there an incentive for me to reduce the packaging waste I produce each week if i can save money? Hmmmmm. But, I digress.
Cable television is a good example of a municipal monopoly, but not a perfect one. Not everyone in the municipality is required to have cable television, and there are alternatives providing competitive choices (antenna or dish). The reason the cable franchise was granted was to encourage the cable provider to build the infrastructure necessary to deliver cable television to each home.
The author misses the entire point of the Open Software movement, that there is NOT a need for government intervention and sponsorship of software developers. There are already free and open software that will already do what the author suggests. The government [or industry, or individuals] could certainly discover a desired feature missing from software, and commission the programmers to create that feature. If the software was IPR protected, the IPR owner could decide whether or not to do the work; if the software was Open Software, a variety of programmin