Toolkit

Story: SAP slams open source 'socialism'

• 
• 

'Socialism' is such a powerfull word nowedays. It makes politicians and other decision makers go emotional and turn a blind eye to the real motivations.

Take the "IP-based free market" for example. That's based on keeping those that are in control stay in control even more so. How's that going to help innovation? What's the motivation to innovate if people have no other option then to buy what you feed them when you want to? What kind of a "free market" is that?

"To be the first" (the usual IP candidate) is a huge advantage in today's world. Competitors might be inclined to reverse engineer that but they'll never be able to do it as fast as simply making an agreement with you, the inventor. And all the while you're steaming ahead and making inroads here and there. Storming the markets if you will. And once customers have invested in you they're not so likely to change that soon. Get there and before you know it several others will have signed contracts with you (get in on the deal) and you'll be set for years. You see, reverse engineering might get give them the methods at that moment in time but it won't give them the methodology behind the whole idea. Ask, for example, any virus writer. And between you and me, I think that virus writers in general are (or at least have been) ahead of the game for years.

So, in my humble opinion, "being the first" has more then enough benefits in an IP-free software market.

Why IP-free? Well, so far it seems that the only choices we have in reality is either IP-free or IP-rich. And given the plenty of examples of bad software patents "rewarded" I rather opt for IP-free then for IP-rich.

The basic question then becomes: what would be the requirements to inspire plenty of people and companies to try to "be the first"? The idea that "being the first" does come with (financial) advantages? Or the idea that if they don't get their (costly) IP act together they run the risk of financially bleeding to death while fighting organizations a couple of magnitudes greater then them in several courts of law for the next coming years?

I think the latter is the most sure way to kill innovation worldwide unless you actually believe that innovations can only come from companies with big enough pockets to buy all the IP in the world one way or another. Basicly reducing "innovation" to a power game then.

Call this 'socialism' or 'nationalism' or whatever other political incorrect label you want to put on this to fit the needs of your own (hidden) agenda. I'll just call it what it is: 'common sense'.

• 
• 

• 
• 
• 

Full Talkback thread