Plagiarism? You be the judge.

[FRED]

Eugene Linden writing for Huffington Post in his article The Ecology of Toxic Mortgages, July 5, 2007 rips off iTulip's Risk Pollution, April 5, 2006.

The premise of "Risk Pollution"?

"We are experiencing a replay of an out-of-control credit expansion and a classic battle between the public good and corporate gain play out in the market for unregulated financial innovations. Hedge funds, banks, mortgage companies and other financial institutions are busy cranking out and selling new financial innovations faster than central banks and governments can control or monitor them. Many of these products help society, for example by giving households access to credit that did not have access before and deserved it. But let’s not lose sight of the reason financial institutions are creating and selling these products: not to help society, but to make money. Due to lack of regulation, much of the potential future costs of financial toxins to society have been externalized. They are making a lot of money and in the process polluting the financial system with risk. "

In Linden's feeble, rip-off starts off with:

"At a metaphorical level, there are irresistible parallels between a profound flaw in early models of how to deal with pollution, and an almost exactly analogous flaw in financial models for how to deal with the financial universe's own version of toxics: risk."

Over a year ago, iTulip said:

"First generation government pollution control policy in the U.S. was, no kidding, "The solution to pollution is dilution." Mix enough air and water with pollutants then toxicity is reduced enough to make them nontoxic."

Now Linden comes up with the bright idea, on all his own:

"...the flawed environmental model for dealing with risk might be summed up by the cute phrase, "dilution is the solution to pollution."

And on and on.

What an idiot.

[jk]

Re: Revolting, blatent plagiarism? You be the judge.

bio at huffington post:
"Eugene Linden began his career as an investigative journalist in Vietnam. His most recent book is Winds of Change: Climate, Weather, and the Destruction of Civilizations." in his intro to the article in question, he says:

"I lead two lives. Three days a week, I'm employed as chief investment strategist for a hedge fund that specializes in distressed and bankrupt situations. The rest of my time, I do what I've done for decades, which is to write about nature and the environment. There is virtually no overlap between these two worlds -- with one exception."

he then goes on to write: "At a metaphorical level, there are irresistible parallels between a profound flaw in early models of how to deal with pollution, and an almost exactly analogous flaw in financial models for how to deal with the financial universe's own version of toxics: risk."

liebniz and newton both developed the calculus, independently. there are lots of examples in science of multiple people or groups independently and almost simultaneously coming up with identical theories or results. for someone who is deeply involved in both finance and environmentalism, the risk=toxin equation doesn't seem an extremely long reach. [i didn't think of it, but what do i know?] it is at least plausible that it could be reached independently. as for "the solution to pollution is dilution" - if it was indeed a maxim of an earlier era, then anyone steeped in the environmental movement might well have come across it.

verdict on the charge of plagiarism: not proven.

and if it is, my advice is to let it go. it would be nice to be acknowledged, but you're not getting paid for it in any direct way anyway, and let a thousand flowers bloom. perhaps some reader of mr linden's will be enlightened.

meanwhile, i have posted a comment to mr. linden's article at the huffington post website suggesting that readers check out itulip.

[FRED]

Re: Revolting, blatent plagiarism? You be the judge.

bio at huffington post:
"Eugene Linden began his career as an investigative journalist in Vietnam. His most recent book is Winds of Change: Climate, Weather, and the Destruction of Civilizations." in his intro to the article in question, he says:

"I lead two lives. Three days a week, I'm employed as chief investment strategist for a hedge fund that specializes in distressed and bankrupt situations. The rest of my time, I do what I've done for decades, which is to write about nature and the environment. There is virtually no overlap between these two worlds -- with one exception."

he then goes on to write: "At a metaphorical level, there are irresistible parallels between a profound flaw in early models of how to deal with pollution, and an almost exactly analogous flaw in financial models for how to deal with the financial universe's own version of toxics: risk."

liebniz and newton both developed the calculus, independently. there are lots of examples in science of multiple people or groups independently and almost simultaneously coming up with identical theories or results. for someone who is deeply involved in both finance and environmentalism, the risk=toxin equation doesn't seem an extremely long reach. [i didn't think of it, but what do i know?] it is at least plausible that it could be reached independently. as for "the solution to pollution is dilution" - if it was indeed a maxim of an earlier era, then anyone steeped in the environmental movement might well have come across it.

verdict on the charge of plagiarism: not proven.

and if it is, my advice is to let it go. it would be nice to be acknowledged, but you're not getting paid for it in any direct way anyway, and let a thousand flowers bloom. perhaps some reader of mr linden's will be enlightened.

meanwhile, i have posted a comment to mr. linden's article at the huffington post website suggesting that readers check out itulip.

No one was discussing the problem in these terms then.

We don't want to come across like we're whining, but if originality is so easily marginalized, there won't be anymore originality. It won't pay to be original.

Think about that for a minute.

[FRED]

Re: Revolting, blatent plagiarism? You be the judge.

Oh, and muchas gracias for makeing the tulip case there!

[jk]

Re: Revolting, blatent plagiarism? You be the judge.

No one was discussing the problem in these terms then.

We don't want to come across like we're whining, but if originality is so easily marginalized, there won't be anymore originality. It won't pay to be original.

Think about that for a minute.

indeed, no one was discussing the problem in these terms when you first made the conceptual link. now others are using the same simile. the important part, however, isn't using or explaining the trope, but using the concept to illuminate the fog of probability that lies ahead.

i think bill fleckenstein coined the phrase: "the housing atm." whoever coined it first, it's all over, whether copied or independently created we'll never know. whatever value fleck creates, it's not from coming up with a cute phrase - it's from running his fund far and away and first and foremost, then from running his website, and writing his articles.

mr linden has posted a total of 2 articles at huffington. [the other one is something about osama bin laden.] his article on financial toxicology has garnered a total of 9 comments, including my own directing people to your "risk pollution" article in particular, and the itulip site in general.

the value of itulip doesn't reside in any particular idea or formulation, it resides in the whole interlinked set of ideas, mostly generated by you, and the traffic and interchange generated thereby. even if he cribbed his every thought from your article, he hasn't detracted from what you've created. at this level of imitation, if imitation it is, it's not worth your time to worry about it.

[EJ]

Re: Revolting, blatent plagiarism? You be the judge.

indeed, no one was discussing the problem in these terms when you first made the conceptual link. now others are using the same simile. the important part, however, isn't using or explaining the trope, but using the concept to illuminate the fog of probability that lies ahead.

i think bill fleckenstein coined the phrase: "the housing atm." whoever coined it first, it's all over, whether copied or independently created we'll never know. whatever value fleck creates, it's not from coming up with a cute phrase - it's from running his fund far and away and first and foremost, then from running his website, and writing his articles.

mr linden has posted a total of 2 articles at huffington. [the other one is something about osama bin laden.] his article on financial toxicology has garnered a total of 9 comments, including my own directing people to your "risk pollution" article in particular, and the itulip site in general.

the value of itulip doesn't reside in any particular idea or formulation, it resides in the whole interlinked set of ideas, mostly generated by you, and the traffic and interchange generated thereby. even if he cribbed his every thought from your article, he hasn't detracted from what you've created. at this level of imitation, if imitation it is, it's not worth your time to worry about it.

I appreciate Fred's defense, though I think it's overstated, and agree with your take. Like Fleck, I will continue to come up new insights, because that's what I do, and others will imitate them, because that's what they do. Long before iTulip I learned from my father, also an inventive person (invented, among other things, the Janszen Electrostatic Loudspeaker) that originality is its own reward, imitation is indeed the sincerest form of flattery, and if not for the tendency of humans to "adopt" new ideas, trademark and patent law would not exist, and thousands of lawyers would go hungry.

[FRED]

Re: Revolting, blatent plagiarism? You be the judge.

bio at huffington post:
"Eugene Linden began his career as an investigative journalist in Vietnam. His most recent book is Winds of Change: Climate, Weather, and the Destruction of Civilizations." in his intro to the article in question, he says:

"I lead two lives. Three days a week, I'm employed as chief investment strategist for a hedge fund that specializes in distressed and bankrupt situations. The rest of my time, I do what I've done for decades, which is to write about nature and the environment. There is virtually no overlap between these two worlds -- with one exception."

he then goes on to write: "At a metaphorical level, there are irresistible parallels between a profound flaw in early models of how to deal with pollution, and an almost exactly analogous flaw in financial models for how to deal with the financial universe's own version of toxics: risk."

liebniz and newton both developed the calculus, independently. there are lots of examples in science of multiple people or groups independently and almost simultaneously coming up with identical theories or results. for someone who is deeply involved in both finance and environmentalism, the risk=toxin equation doesn't seem an extremely long reach. [i didn't think of it, but what do i know?] it is at least plausible that it could be reached independently. as for "the solution to pollution is dilution" - if it was indeed a maxim of an earlier era, then anyone steeped in the environmental movement might well have come across it.

verdict on the charge of plagiarism: not proven.

and if it is, my advice is to let it go. it would be nice to be acknowledged, but you're not getting paid for it in any direct way anyway, and let a thousand flowers bloom. perhaps some reader of mr linden's will be enlightened.

meanwhile, i have posted a comment to mr. linden's article at the huffington post website suggesting that readers check out itulip.

Yes, except he came up with it more than a year later not "almost simultaneously". I've had more time to think about it. He probably read it a year ago, forget he did, and then "thought it up" himself a year later. He's probably never had an original thought come into his head in his life.