PDA

View Full Version : Private Property can be counter productive


a_unique_person
14th April 2005, 04:24 AM
I was just listening to one of the inventors of the internet yesterday, (so I can't remember his name), and he was relating how they deliberately didn't patent TCP/IP and the rest. The results are pretty obvious, I think. Business and property has it's place, but the concepts are definitely not the be all and end all of the basis of wealth.

Ian Osborne
14th April 2005, 04:52 AM
Tim Berners-Lee? (www.w3.org/People/Berners-Lee)

seayakin
14th April 2005, 05:51 AM
Tim Berners-Lee did not create the IP-Protocol. He created HTML. The IP protocol was created many years earlier by the U.S. Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA).
Source (http://www.isoc.org/internet/history/cerf.shtml)

The Central Scrutinizer
14th April 2005, 06:05 AM
Originally posted by a_unique_person
I was just listening to one of the inventors of the internet yesterday, (so I can't remember his name),

Al Gore?

Drooper
14th April 2005, 06:24 AM
Originally posted by a_unique_person
I was just listening to one of the inventors of the internet yesterday, (so I can't remember his name), and he was relating how they deliberately didn't patent TCP/IP and the rest. The results are pretty obvious, I think. Business and property has it's place, but the concepts are definitely not the be all and end all of the basis of wealth.

Wrong.

Private property is one of the founding pillars of global income creation and welfare.

Ziggurat
14th April 2005, 07:58 AM
Originally posted by Drooper
Wrong.

Private property is one of the founding pillars of global income creation and welfare.

No, he's not actually wrong this time, although what he's saying is really mostly applicable to intellectual property where, unlike physical property, there is no inherent scarcity. Open and free standards are often very good for commerce. But it's also quite true that a lot of capitalists and corporations recognize this. That's why, even from within a totally corporate world, you see the emergence of standards bodies that define common platforms, such as the specifications for CD's. Other times the intellectual property is kept private, but licensed broadly and cheaply enough that it receives near-universal adoption anyways, such as MP3's.

a_unique_person
14th April 2005, 08:07 AM
Originally posted by Drooper
Wrong.

Private property is one of the founding pillars of global income creation and welfare.

I was working on IBM mainframe systems years ago, and IBM had it's own, quite functional protocol, SNA. It even tried to get companies interested in sending email globally via IBM owned systems to their offices in other countries. It didn't even begin to look like catching on. MSN was going to be Microsofts own WWW. It didn't catch on either. Open, and free, standards that require no intellectual property rent can create massive increases in wealth.

edit, the protocol was actually SDLC.

PogoPedant
14th April 2005, 08:37 AM
Originally posted by Drooper
Wrong.

Meaning that property is the be all and end all of global income creation and welfare, right?


Private property is one of the founding pillars of global income creation and welfare.
Except that it is only one of several founding pillars of global income and welfare.

Hmm.... Methinks there's a bit of an inconsistency somewhere...

LW
14th April 2005, 08:54 AM
Originally posted by Ziggurat
No, he's not actually wrong this time, although what he's saying is really mostly applicable to intellectual property where, unlike physical property, there is no inherent scarcity. Open and free standards are often very good for commerce.

The inventors of new things like communication protocols, cryptographic or compression algorithms, and new data formats have a dilemma: either release it to free use and perhaps never profit a dime from the ensuing world-wide success story, or sell it commercially and perhaps never profit a dime from it because no one wants to use it as almost as good algorithms are available for free.

If I ever have to make this choice (very unlikely), I'll probably choose the free distribution and hope that it will catch on and make my name so well-known in the industry that some large corporation is prepared to pay me an insane salary just to get me work with them.

Drooper
14th April 2005, 09:11 AM
Originally posted by PogoPedant
Meaning that property is the be all and end all of global income creation and welfare, right?


Except that it is only one of several founding pillars of global income and welfare.

Hmm.... Methinks there's a bit of an inconsistency somewhere...

Meaning that the statement "private property can be counter productive" is wrong.

This specific example simply shows that certain qualities of certain goods can prove counter productive (in this case positive externalities). Private property rights are not reall the issue

The existance of private property in one way was instrumental in the growth and proliferatoin of the WWW and internet. If you don't believe me, have a look at the bottom of the JREF home page:



© 2001 James Randi Educational Foundation

seayakin
14th April 2005, 12:15 PM
Originally posted by a_unique_person
I was working on IBM mainframe systems years ago, and IBM had it's own, quite functional protocol, SNA. It even tried to get companies interested in sending email globally via IBM owned systems to their offices in other countries. It didn't even begin to look like catching on. MSN was going to be Microsofts own WWW. It didn't catch on either. Open, and free, standards that require no intellectual property rent can create massive increases in wealth.

edit, the protocol was actually SDLC.

I think those are some excellent examples on why closed systems often fail. Even with the market share that Microsoft has and previously IBM, they cannot simply enforce any standard they wish.

I am most curious to see if more companies adopt Linux over the next few years as a desktop platform in order to avoid paying Microsoft licensing fees.

a_unique_person
14th April 2005, 05:14 PM
Originally posted by Drooper
Meaning that the statement "private property can be counter productive" is wrong.

This specific example simply shows that certain qualities of certain goods can prove counter productive (in this case positive externalities). Private property rights are not reall the issue

The existance of private property in one way was instrumental in the growth and proliferatoin of the WWW and internet. If you don't believe me, have a look at the bottom of the JREF home page:

I didn't say that private property was not a part of the growth of the web, I said that the free and public intellectual property of the TCP/IP protocol, for example, was an important part of the success of the private part.

Private property is a part of the creation of the modern society, and I would guess that primitive societies that tend to have a communal property ownership stayed that way because they don't have a strong sense of private property. (The Australian aboriginals, for example, are trying to come to terms with their traditional, communal way of life, and creating societies that can function in the western culture that dominates Australia now).

But it was societies such as theirs that created the basis for the western culture, as it was their societies that were able to survive the 'cave man' days and flourish around the world.

Elind
14th April 2005, 07:43 PM
Originally posted by a_unique_person
I was just listening to one of the inventors of the internet yesterday, (so I can't remember his name), and he was relating how they deliberately didn't patent TCP/IP and the rest. The results are pretty obvious, I think. Business and property has it's place, but the concepts are definitely not the be all and end all of the basis of wealth.

Are you sure you were actually listening, some of the time? Have you been thinking in between?

a_unique_person
14th April 2005, 08:18 PM
Originally posted by Elind
Are you sure you were actually listening, some of the time? Have you been thinking in between?

And your point is?