Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

"Social Production" & open-source economics

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • "Social Production" & open-source economics

    Welcome to TED.com's view of our future, where "Social Production" replaces "Material Production", and where human social behavior is measured, commodified and monetized via a system of computer networks. Within this paradigm, it is the humans that are nodes within the networked system, interconnected globally and operating/exchanging socially produced "objects" based upon rules established by the network designers and their operators.











    The Wealth of Networks – With Yochai Benkler
    http://www.scribemedia.org/2007/03/19/yochai-benkler/

    Yochai Benkler has a thought. He has many really. But the central thought stems from the very simple fact that you and I find ourselves online with a growing host of communicative and collaborative tools at our disposal.

    “Every connected person on the planet — somewhere like a billion people — now has the physical capital necessary to make and communicate information, knowledge and culture.”

    This is what Yochai says and if you think blogs or Flickr or del.icio.us or YouTube or Wikis and especially Wikipedia, you begin to get a sense of what he means by ordinary connected folk having the “physical capital necessary.”

    This physical capital is simply a modem and a computer. Have that and you can participate. Now contrast that very low barrier to entry with what is needed to start a television or radio station, or to publish a magazine or newspaper.

    On the face of it, the concept is relatively pedestrian. People have spoken about the democratizing Internet revolution since the earliest days of the Web.

    However, Benkler digs deeper and considers the economic, legal and political ramifications of what happens when there is no intermediary preventing your voice, your code, your video, your pictures or your ideas from riffing on, mashing up, making heads tails or doing it the other way around.

    And if we look around we see new economies mushrooming left and right. Less than a decade ago some Stanford grad students figured out an algorithm to improve search. They called their company Google and now employ over 10,000. In 2006 they bought a video sharing company that was founded in 2005. Purchase price: $1.65 billion.

    In 1992, an open source operating system with a funny name was completed. The underlying source code for Linux was and is available for anyone to use, modify and freely redistribute. By the late 90’s, IBM and Hewlett-Packard were among just some of the many corporations giving it support. By the early 2000’s, a quarter of all servers were running Linux rather than proprietary systems. Spain, Brazil and China are just some of many governments that have adopted the platform throughout government agencies.

    Individuals and collectives band together throughout the blogosphere and uncover halftruths, distortions and lies. All they need is a free blog account to do so.

    This networked world is destructive to the previous gatekeepers of information, culture and proprietary systems. When Brazil has 20,000 Linux desktops (and counting), that’s 20,000 less Microsoft licenses. Such destruction can be spun positively and Benkler’s positive spin is found in The Wealth of Networks: How Social Production Transforms Markets and Freedom.

    Published in 2006, The Wealth of Networks builds on Benkler’s previous ideas about the transformative effects of networked environments.

    At root is something he calls “commons-based peer production” the effects of which are overturning culture, politics and knowledge.

    The “commons” can be considered a social sphere: it brings groups together to create and build. It leverages these groups to create something entirely new. And it allows for new people and new groups to build on its output.

    The commons is also a legal attitude based on Stanford’s Lawrence Lessig and his work with Creative Commons, a non-profit that provides a way to expand the range and number of creative works available in the public sphere for others to legally build upon and share.

    In the video below, Benkler explores how legal and social forces are creating and intertwining with economic forces, and what this might all mean for democratic societies.


    The greatest obstacle to discovery is not ignorance - it is the illusion of knowledge ~D Boorstin

  • #2
    Re: "Social Production" & open-source economics

    More technotopian nonsense.

    Linux wouldn't be where it is without Big Blue's deep pockets and lawyers keeping the SCO's down.

    An example where 'open source' and 'common standards' were used to create a toll gate across and entire industrial segment:

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

    In the early 1990s, Rambus was invited to join the JEDEC. Rambus had been trying to interest memory manufacturers in licensing their proprietary memory interface, and numerous companies had signed non-disclosure agreements to view Rambus' technical data. During the later Infineon v. Rambus trial, Infineon memos from a meeting with representatives of other manufacturers surfaced, including the line “[O]ne day all computers will be built this way, but hopefully without the royalties going to Rambus”, and continuing with a strategy discussion for reducing or eliminating royalties to be paid to Rambus. As Rambus continued its participation in JEDEC, it became apparent that they were not prepared to agree to JEDEC’s patent policy requiring owners of patents included in a standard to agree to license that technology under terms that are ‘reasonable and non-discriminatory’,[3] and Rambus withdrew from the organization in 1995. Memos from Rambus at that time showed they were tailoring new patent applications to cover features of SDRAM being discussed, which were public knowledge (JEDEC meetings were not considered secret) and perfectly legal for patent owners who have patented underlying innovations, but were seen as evidence of bad faith by the jury in the first Infineon v. Rambus trial. The Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) rejected this theory of bad faith in its decision overturning the fraud conviction Infineon achieved in the first trial (see below).

    In 2000, Rambus began filing lawsuits against the largest memory manufacturers, claiming that they owned SDRAM and DDR technology. Seven manufacturers, including Samsung, quickly settled with Rambus and agreed to pay royalties on SDRAM and DDR memory. When Rambus sued Infineon Technologies, however, Micron and Hynix joined forces with Infineon to fight the lawsuit, countersuing with claims of fraud. This trio of memory manufacturers became known as “The Three Amigos”. In May 2001, Rambus was found guilty of fraud for having claimed that they owned SDRAM and DDR technology, and all infringement claims against memory manufacturers were dismissed. In January 2003, the CAFC overturned the fraud verdict of the jury trial in Virginia under Judge Payne, issued a new claims construction, and remanded the case back to Virginia for re-trial on infringement. In October 2003, the US Supreme Court refused to hear the case. Thus, the case returned to Virginia per the CAFC ruling.

    In January 2005, Rambus filed four more lawsuits against memory chip makers Hynix Semiconductor, Nanya Technology, Inotera Memories and Infineon Technology claiming that DDR 2, GDDR 2 and GDDR 3 chips contain Rambus technology. In March 2005, Rambus had its claim for patent infringements against Infineon dismissed. Rambus was accused of shredding key documents prior to court hearings, the judge agreed and dismissed Rambus' case against Infineon. This sent Rambus to the settlement table with Infineon. Infineon has agreed to pay Rambus quarterly license fees of $5.9m and in return, both companies ceased all litigation against each other. The agreement runs from November 2005 to November 2007. After this date, if Rambus has enough other agreements in place, Infineon may make extra payments up to $100m. Currently, cases involving Micron and Hynix remain in court. In June 2005, Rambus also sued one of its strongest proponents, Samsung, the world's largest memory manufacturer, and terminated Samsung's license. Samsung had promoted Rambus's RDRAM and currently remains a licensee of Rambus's XDR memory.

    In May 2002, the United Stated Federal Trade Commission (FTC) filed charges against Rambus for antitrust violations. Specifically, the FTC complaint asserted that through the use of patent continuations and divisionals, Rambus pursued a strategy of expanding the scope of its patent claims to encompass the emerging SDRAM standard. The FTC's antitrust allegations against Rambus went to trial in the summer of 2003 after the organization formally accused Rambus of anti-competitive behavior the previous June, itself the result of an investigation launched in May 2002 at the behest of the memory manufacturers. The FTC's chief administrative-law judge, Stephen J. McGuire, dismissed the antitrust claims against Rambus in 2004, saying that the memory industry had no reasonable alternatives to Rambus technology and was aware of the potential scope of Rambus patent rights, according to the company. Soon after, FTC investigators filed a brief to appeal against that ruling.
    Rambus today is a 2.5 billion dollar market cap patent troll organization.

    Comment


    • #3
      Re: "Social Production" & open-source economics

      Originally posted by c1ue View Post
      More technotopian nonsense.

      Linux wouldn't be where it is without Big Blue's deep pockets and lawyers keeping the SCO's down.
      Well, no one would be exactly where they are if anything changed in their past.

      But Linux would be pretty much in the same position even if IBM had not taken the lead in opposing SCO. SCO was doomed in its claims from day one, and many large companies (Oracle, Hitachi, Cisco, Bull, HP, Intel, Sun, SGI, Novell, Fujitsu, Red Hat, U.S. Dept of Defense, NASA, various universities, ...) have major investments in Linux. IBM just had the biggest baddest stable of lawyers, so deemed it was in its own best interest to lead the charge (*).

      Most of these major commitments were well under way when SCO went rogue. SCO's case was a legal looser, against over whelming opposition, from day one.

      Originally posted by c1ue View Post
      An example where 'open source' and 'common standards' were used to create a toll gate across and entire industrial segment:

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rambus
      Rambus is not open source ... it is an example of the limitations of an older model of intellectual property. Further it is but a toll road on a single rather narrowly purposed layer of computer technology. Little burps like that happen in various ways and so long as they do not have significant architectural implications on multiple unrelated layers, then they are but a footnote to the history of computer and software architecture. The Intel 8008 Instruction Set Architecture and the DOS/Windows system call API have caused far worse and longer lasting damage to the development of computers than has Rambus.

      (*) Besides - IBM was one of the Linux players that SCO attacked. Don't attack IBM in a legal contest if you don't want some serious push back.
      Last edited by ThePythonicCow; July 20, 2010, 11:14 PM.
      Most folks are good; a few aren't.

      Comment


      • #4
        Re: "Social Production" & open-source economics

        Originally posted by c1ue View Post
        More technotopian nonsense.
        Who cares about what specific tech is deployed here? We're not talking about open-source tech, we're talking about open source social and economy ecosystems. For example, contemplate a future where social interaction is monetized?
        The greatest obstacle to discovery is not ignorance - it is the illusion of knowledge ~D Boorstin

        Comment


        • #5
          Re: "Social Production" & open-source economics

          Originally posted by reggie View Post
          For example, contemplate a future where social interaction is monetized?
          That has been going on since prehistoric times!

          Comment


          • #6
            Re: "Social Production" & open-source economics

            Originally posted by Rajiv View Post
            That has been going on since prehistoric times!

            What's new is the extreme rationalization of social production through technology, where Hudson's description of a tollbooth economy takes-on entirely new meaning.
            The greatest obstacle to discovery is not ignorance - it is the illusion of knowledge ~D Boorstin

            Comment


            • #7
              Re: "Social Production" & open-source economics

              Originally posted by TPC
              Rambus is not open source ... it is an example of the limitations of an older model of intellectual property. Further it is but a toll road on a single rather narrowly purposed layer of computer technology. Little burps like that happen in various ways and so long as they do not have significant architectural implications on multiple unrelated layers, then they are but a footnote to the history of computer and software architecture. The Intel 8008 Instruction Set Architecture and the DOS/Windows system call API have caused far worse and longer lasting damage to the development of computers than has Rambus.
              Rambus isn't open source, but the reason they got into their position was their well planned participation in JEDEC - which WAS open source.

              Said participation was then used to file patents on the agreed upon JEDEC standard.

              The rest is history.

              Originally posted by reggie
              For example, contemplate a future where social interaction is monetized?
              Social interaction has always been monetized, just not in physical dollars transacting between 2 parties.

              Or perhaps you are unaware of the 'old boy' networks?

              How about the corporate 'posses'?

              Having all the social misfits talk to each other is nice, but it is still far from clear how much qualitative improvement is gained as opposed to the further balkanization of society - this time across Facebook/Twitter cliques as opposed to high school lunch cliques.

              Indeed, the Internet thus far has primarily been notable more for its ability to segregate the like minded together than its ability to integrate all across society.

              Comment


              • #8
                Re: "Social Production" & open-source economics

                We're talkin' mediated social interaction through a vast array of sensors, computer networks and feedback-control algorithms. Do you see the Diff?
                The greatest obstacle to discovery is not ignorance - it is the illusion of knowledge ~D Boorstin

                Comment


                • #9
                  Re: "Social Production" & open-source economics

                  Originally posted by reggie
                  We're talkin' mediated social interaction through a vast array of sensors, computer networks and feedback-control algorithms. Do you see the Diff?
                  Yes, the difference is like Stalin's position of Secretary of the Communist party: being able to write the meeting notes, set the agenda, assign priority to speakers, fix the schedule.

                  Oh wait, no difference at all. After all, Google wouldn't possibly want serve you badly by serving up an ad as opposed to content.

                  Errr.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Re: "Social Production" & open-source economics

                    Originally posted by c1ue View Post
                    Rambus isn't open source, but the reason they got into their position was their well planned participation in JEDEC - which WAS open source.

                    Said participation was then used to file patents on the agreed upon JEDEC standard.

                    The rest is history.
                    Some notes about rambus:
                    *They're not pure patent trolls, on the contrary. They've developed (and still develop) some very high-tech technology and implementations (XDR/XDR2).
                    *JEDEC is not really your average bunch of nice-guys. Most members have been convicted for example for price fixing over recent years.
                    *A different interpretation about Rambus & JEDEC could be: JEDEC didn't like Rambus demands for use of their technology and thought they could get away with not paying Rambus anything. The countless amount of lawsuits have proven JEDEC overplayed their hand.
                    engineer with little (or even no) economic insight

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Re: "Social Production" & open-source economics

                      Originally posted by reggie View Post
                      Do you see the Diff?
                      Apparently, from his response, no, c1ue doesn't see a difference.

                      Thank-you, reggie, for posting your initial post on this thread. Yochai Benkler seems to have some interesting perspectives.

                      My apologies for helping to hijack this thread (starting with my response to c1ue regarding Linux and SCO, where I could not resist an immediate response, given my 30 years of considerable and varied experience in exactly that area.)

                      I had looked further into the other matter c1ue raised, regarding Rambus, with the intention of responding to that one as well. That area required my doing some research, as my experience there was quite a bit more superficial and limited. However I doubt such a reply would serve any useful purpose. So never mind that. This thread is probably toast by now anyway. In short, Rambus and the open standards (not open source) efforts of major vendors are all aspects of the proprietary corporate model, not of the new paradigm of which Benkler speaks.

                      I'll summarize the point that this thread could have made, had it survived birth.
                      As described by Yochai Benkler, a new economic structure is coming forth, that is as moss is to the corn stalks of the major existing industrial and corporate structures.
                      You also wrote above:
                      Originally posted by reggie
                      What's new is the extreme rationalization of social production through technology, where Hudson's description of a tollbooth economy takes-on entirely new meaning.
                      I sense (though I won't be surprised if you deny intending it) a bit of paranoia in this. I read your comment as suggesting that this new economic structure that Benkler is describing is another tool of mass oppression promulgated by the elite.

                      Yes, I am sure the elite are doing their damnedest to get up to speed and on top of these new paradigms. The Military Industrial Complex (MIC) has been and remains quite active in many developments of technology and societal organization. They heavily influenced the Internet, the Interstate Highway system, radio, jet engines, and a bazillion other artifacts of our civilization. I am confident that Google has a more complex relationship with the NSA than we know publicly. That doesn't stop me from riding on the roads, listening to the radio, surfing the web, searching on Google, and flying in a jet plane.

                      Yes, in sum, there is a new way of doing things afoot. As have many of us, I have been heavily involved in this new say for at least the last decade, such as in my political (and economic) discussions on FreeRepublic.com earlier, my economic (and political) discussions on iTulip recently, and in my extensive work within an open source software project, Linux.

                      Human civilization has another way to structure itself. Neat.
                      Most folks are good; a few aren't.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Re: "Social Production" & open-source economics

                        Originally posted by FrankL View Post
                        Some notes about rambus:
                        Yes - my research of the last day confirms your notes. It's a complex story.

                        The end result seems to be that Rambus is collecting licensing fees from just about all the uses of their RAM bus technology. The NVidia case is still open, but seems likely to conclude soon, as reported at for example:
                        Most folks are good; a few aren't.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Re: "Social Production" & open-source economics

                          Originally posted by FrankL
                          Some notes about rambus:
                          *They're not pure patent trolls, on the contrary. They've developed (and still develop) some very high-tech technology and implementations (XDR/XDR2).
                          I've never said Rambus developed nothing. A patent troll at a minimum must understand the narrow bridges inherent in any technological development curve in order to effectively place its tollbooth.

                          Originally posted by FrankL
                          *JEDEC is not really your average bunch of nice-guys. Most members have been convicted for example for price fixing over recent years.
                          And what does this mean exactly? That the rest of the memory industry - which Rambus has threatened and/or sued - is therefore the same because it also had employed unsavory business practices? 2 wrongs don't cancel out - and price fixing by the memory industry doesn't absolve Rambus' behavior.

                          Originally posted by FrankL
                          *A different interpretation about Rambus & JEDEC could be: JEDEC didn't like Rambus demands for use of their technology and thought they could get away with not paying Rambus anything. The countless amount of lawsuits have proven JEDEC overplayed their hand.
                          Sorry, but your reinterpretation fails to account for the core of the allegation: that Rambus originally decided to partake in the JEDEC discussions, but withdrew after gainin insight into the JEDEC technology curve, then putting up a series of patents.

                          It is exactly like my joining up some open source discussion, figuring out where its going, then running up ahead to put in a roadblock somewhere like the '1 click order' patent.

                          If Rambus indeed were so revolutionary, why then would they even bother with JEDEC? They joined because without a clear idea on what the rest of the industry was doing, their business strategy would not have been successful.

                          JEDEC's mistake was exactly in allowing Rambus to peek in before signing appropriate agreements, then following through with a virtual industry standard which Rambus already knew the major details of.

                          It is equally damning that a company which doesn't actually MAKE memory somehow is supposedly on the leading edge of memory development. Where are the Rambus fabs? The Rambus spice models? The Rambus 2D or 3D memory cells?

                          I've dealt with Rambus on IP in a former occupation - their pattern of behavior in my dealings with them was entirely consistent with the public story of their interaction with JEDEC.

                          Every single interaction went through a lawyer, every contract had to have IP control tricks combed out.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Re: "Social Production" & open-source economics

                            Originally posted by ThePythonicCow View Post
                            I read your comment as suggesting that this new economic structure that Benkler is describing is another tool of mass oppression promulgated by the elite.
                            Yup, but I would have replaced the word "oppression" with "control".

                            By the way, do you not find it interesting that this new system is arising just as the old system crashes? And you do realize that the MIC think tanks have been working on this for almost 100 years (Wiener got his Harvard PhD in 1912)?
                            The greatest obstacle to discovery is not ignorance - it is the illusion of knowledge ~D Boorstin

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Re: "Social Production" & open-source economics

                              Originally posted by reggie View Post
                              And you do realize that the MIC think tanks have been working on this for almost 100 years (Wiener got his Harvard PhD in 1912)?
                              You seem to me to have an undo tendency to see everything that the Military Industrial Complex (MIC) is active in as being driven by the MIC, and also a tendency to insinuate by selective use of impressive names certain connections that are not necessarily there.

                              I'm sure the MIC has been working on various mass control mechanisms for a long time. However I am sure that many others have been working the same mechanisms for just about as long.

                              Your insinuation that this has been going on since at least 1912 because Wiener got his PhD then seems to be a bit of a stretch however. From Norbert Wiener (Wikipedia):
                              Harvard awarded Wiener a Ph.D. during 1912, when he was merely 18 years old, for a dissertation on mathematical logic, supervised by Karl Schmidt, the essential results of which were published as Wiener (1914). In that dissertation, he was the first to state publicly that ordered pairs can be defined in terms of elementary set theory. Hence relations can be defined by set theory, so that the theory of relations does not require any axioms or primitive notions distinct from those of set theory.
                              I would not consider mathematical logic, set theory and the foundations of mathematics to be tools of mass control, nor would I imagine that such studies at Harvard a century ago were primarily or particularly driven by the MIC. I am familiar with this area myself, having written my thesis (involving the independence of the Axiom of Choice from the Boolean Prime Ideal Theorem, for a BA degree at Reed College) in this area. This work hasn't a bloody thing to do with mass control except in the most indirect way that mathematical logic and set theory are foundational disciplines for mathematics, which in turn is a foundation for physics, which in turn ...

                              But enough, enough .. of my bragging that I know what an ordered pair is.

                              Back to the statement that you implicitly made by substituting the word 'control' for the word 'oppression' in my statement:
                              ... this new economic structure that Benkler is describing is another tool of mass control promulgated by the elite.
                              Sure -- the elite use (or try to) this new structure, along with just about every other tool at their disposal, as a tool of mass control.

                              But us proletariats, we the masses, use the same tools to preserve our freedom!

                              Would you have warned (in conspiratorial tones) the Minute Men in Concord, Massachusetts in 1775 that the guns they were using were weapons of mass control promulgated by the British Red Coats; that gun development and the education of gun developers had been ongoing for centuries? A duh! Of course the Minute Men used guns as did the Red Coats. Guns were useful tools available to both sides.

                              Do not confuse tools with long term interests.

                              I see you've been using the Internet today, to make your post above. We all "know" that the Internet was developed by the MIC as a means of mass control. Therefore you must be (whether consciously or duped remains to be seen) an agent of the MIC! Nonsense.
                              Most folks are good; a few aren't.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X