Shooting Down The Claim That The AK-47 Needed Intellectual Property Protection
from the makes-no-sense dept
We see all sorts of odd arguments in favor of intellectual property, but I think this latest one may be the most ridiculous of all. Gautam John points us to a story by Andrew Leonard (whose work I usually think is fantastic, but this time...) claiming that the AK-47 is in trouble because of a failure to use intellectual property. But that's not what the details show at all. Basically, the issue is that the "official" maker of AK-47s may be on the verge of bankruptcy due to a whole variety of reasons including "a slump in arms exports, high levels of outstanding debt, and the machinations of a mysterious ultranationalist businessman." So... uh... why is it an IP issue? Well, the Soviet Union apparently offered tons of licenses to many different providers in the early days of the AK, so there's lots of competition. Leonard notes:But the real problem may be more akin to the woes currently afflicting the newspaper industry and recorded music business: It's very hard to make a buck when your product is easily copied and widely accessible.Well, considering all those other problems were listed first, it's unclear why it's the "easily copied" problem that's the culprit. But even if we grant the premise, the argument still makes no sense at all. First of all, the AK-47 has been made by many different manufacturers for many, many years. It makes no sense that it would be the competition that has now put it out of business, since that competition has been around for ages. Common sense would tell you that it's not the copying that's the problem. If it was, this issue would have come up years ago, rather than 60 years after the AK-47 was first created. Second, the report is just about this one manufacturer struggling, not all of the others. That suggests, again, that the problem isn't in the fact that the AK-47 is so easily copied. After all, all those other manufacturers face that same "problem."
Finally, there's no evidence at all that a lack of intellectual property is harming the AK-47 at all. In fact, from the sound of things, it's still an incredibly popular weapon. The problem is just with a single manufacturer who has other issues to deal with. So, the end result if this one firm goes out of business does no net damage to the market for AK-47s. Others step in to take up the slack. Just because one firm in a market fails, it hardly means that there needed to be stronger intellectual property. That's a huge, and totally unsubstantiated leap.
Separately, part of Leonard's reasoning for this is based on a myth that's been debunked for years. He compares the AK-47 to other technologies where "lower quality" products won out due to "path dependence," and names the QWERTY keyboard and the VHS (over Betamax) examples. The problem is that, as popular as that story is, it's a myth. The idea that Dvorak was better than QWERTY isn't supported by the evidence. Other similar stories have also been debunked. With things like VHS and Betamax, the problem is that the "quality" that people rely on is not the factor by which buyers made their purchase decision on. Sure, the video quality of Betamax may have been "better," but the overall utility of VHS was much greater because it could record much more per tape.
So, sorry, but I don't see any evidence that the AK-47 either relied on "path dependence" for success, or that it would be better off today if there was some intellectual property around it. In fact, I'd argue that the whole claim that intellectual property was the problem actually stems from a different story from a couple years ago, where the Russian gov't suddenly started claiming intellectual property rights over the AK-47 and started demanding payments from manufacturers. That's not using IP to encourage innovation. It's a gov't using it as a tax (which, if anything, would make life more difficult for AK-47 manufacturers... perhaps like the one now going out of business).
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: ak-47, intellectual property, russia
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
And another govt bail out will be under way .....
I wish someone would tell congress this
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: And another govt bail out will be under way .....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: And another govt bail out will be under way .....
Sure, the entire market will likely be better off (higher demand for competitors due to lower output from the first company, the same company being able to offer the same product at a lower price and/or higher profit margin, etc), but at the cost of a community being devastated. Jobs may be created somewhere else, but they were lost in that community. From someone who lives in a region where this has happened, it can have a huge and lasting effect until you start to reinvent yourself.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I mean the AK is the #1 weapon of the third world, is their respect for IP so overpowering that they would just spend more on the original because its the right thing to do?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
(Fun fact: AK is for "Automatic Kalashnikov", named for the inventor!)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Thanks
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
1. Who invented it?
2. What was its original model designation?
3. What was its nickname by US toops in in Vietnam
4. What was the design originally intended for?
5. What is the current US Military model designation of the new generation of the M16 in current use?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Side note on Dvorak
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Side note on Dvorak
(I could be horribly wrong; I wasn't there at the time!)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Side note on Dvorak
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Side note on Dvorak
The layout was supposed to put common pairs of letters at opposite ends of the keyboard so that as far as possible letters coming up wouldn't hit the previously typed letter coming back down right beside it.
I don't know how this explains pairs like 'de', 'es', 'er' and 'io' though. They're pretty common and still right beside each other on the keyboard.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Side note on Dvorak
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Side note on Dvorak
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Side note on Dvorak
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
So it comes down to the gov't got what it wanted, a butt load of AK's flooded the market and the design is so durable that they last a real long time in the harshest of environments with little regard to maintenance.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The real question is...
Confession time, I am a gun owner and believe in the right to own guns, so the above should be taken as humor by gun owners. Anti-gunners on the other hand will be sure to pile on though. :)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
IBM PCs
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
You forgot the best bit
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
fun facts
AK-47 was designed in the mid 1940s (Between 1944 and 1946) and began issue in 1947.
AK-74 is the modern Avtomat Kalashnikova designed in 1974 and began being issued in 1975. The AK-74 is really an update to the AKM, which was an update to the AK-47.
While the AK47 fires the well known 7.62mmX39mm round, the AK74 fires a much smaller round at 5.54mmX39mm round that fires has a much higher muzzle velocity (710mps for the 47, and 900mps for the 74). The 74 was in responce to the m-16 and the conflict in 'Nam.
Mikhail Kalashnikov never liked the ak-74. He felt like the smaller faster round was not as good as the heavier slower round of the 47 model.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
fun facts
AK-47 was designed in the mid 1940s (Between 1944 and 1946) and began issue in 1947.
AK-74 is the modern Avtomat Kalashnikova designed in 1974 and began being issued in 1975. The AK-74 is really an update to the AKM, which was an update to the AK-47.
While the AK47 fires the well known 7.62mmX39mm round, the AK74 fires a much smaller round at 5.54mmX39mm round that fires has a much higher muzzle velocity (710mps for the 47, and 900mps for the 74). The 74 was in responce to the m-16 and the conflict in 'Nam.
Mikhail Kalashnikov never liked the ak-74. He felt like the smaller faster round was not as good as the heavier slower round of the 47 model.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: fun facts
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: fun facts
--You guys know way too much about weapons. I think gun nuts and computers geeks should be separated like Church and State:
It's just too much power in one group's hands.--
You mean, like the government?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: fun facts
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: fun facts
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: fun facts
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: fun facts
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
When Arms Dealers Fail
I'm glad there's not enough business to keep the original AK factory going. Maybe humans are smartening up?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Guy with an AK-47: You talking to me? rat-a-ta-a-ta-ata!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Imbecile Self-Absorbed Choads
(Of course it caught on pretty much everywhere else, too)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Dvorak has not been debunked
The article caricatures path dependence as absolute "lock in." In fact, path dependence does not mean that you cannot switch from an existing technology: it simply says that the costs of doing so are high. When you first build your road infrastructure, for example, you can choose to drive on the left or the right at equal cost. But once that choice has been made, switching it becomes increasingly expensive. That's path dependence, and no, it hasn't been debunked.
That isn't the only problem with the article. There is a whole field of research (particularly Social Construction of Technology theory, or SCOT) around how technologies are chosen and shaped by the choices people make. There is no best or optimal technology. There are only technologies that are better for particular uses or particular groups. A given technology makes some things harder, and other things easier (these are called affordances). You give VHS versus Beta as an example. Beta quality was higher, but VHS length was longer. Which is better? It depends on who you ask. The technology is shaped by the people and interests who use it and influence its development. If early adopters see the technology a certain way, that is likely to shape the technology. Later, more people will use the technology, but in the form set by those who shaped it earlier. The article you point to does not mention any of this broader field of research, or admit that the process is any more complex than its simplified description.
Now, whether path dependence applies to the AK-47 I don't know. I would think the effects would be much smaller than for a video or keyboard standard. If path dependence does play a role, I would expect it to be amplified by the lack of patent protection. This is how giving something away can be used to set a standard, benefiting the giver. I find it really strange that you are arguing against path dependence when in fact it is a major argument in favor of more open regimes for patents and copyrights.
As to Dvorak, I learned it on a bet several years after learning QWERTY in higschool. I found it was faster (though only barely), more accurate, and definitely easier on the fingers. Previously typing could tire my hands; this no longer happens (except when I switch back to QWERTY, which I do have to do sometimes when away from my own machine). A friend of mine laughed at Dvorak until he got repetitive stress problems; he switched and hasn't looked back. Of course this is anecdotal. I am not aware of any study that resolves the issue. But that article sure doesn't.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Great point, and another reason to limit IP to a less obstructive scope.
The same often goes for solutions in IT... I get really, really annoyed when people try to force-sell "best practice" square pegs into round holes.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Moreover, if you strengthen the IP, say by increasing its term to 90 years like some copyrights, you still wouldn't help matters. According to Mike, the technology was broadly licensed. Strong IP _was_ used, it was simply used to spread risk rather than to obtain and maintain a monopoly.
More importantly, at least in the US the goal of IP is _not_ to increase profits of early distributors, but to secure progress. The success of the AK-47 is probably a very good lesson that IP monopolies are counterproductive to that end. Compare the AK-47's market success with other weapons', and the unsurprising revelation is that IP monopolies interfere with the dissemination of ideas, and the development of new ones.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Say what?
2. AK-47 and it's revamped version of AK-74 are just some of the products. There are newer versions of AK being produced plus the whole myriad of other weapons (rifles, bombs, etc...) being manufactured there. Izhmash produces weapons for both military and civilian applications.
3. Weapons are just a part of what Izhmash makes. Other divisions produce motocycles, cars, industrial machinery, etc...
Conclusion: how possibly could this have been avoided by copyrighting one specific product?
FUN FACT:
Even if there was copyright in place, it would have belonged to the state not to the factory that produced the product, i.e., Izhmash would not have seen a single penny of that money.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Value point
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Value point
Even without a restriction like this, the other arguments stand. It's not that IP laws were ignored, since the originator of the AK-47 CHOSE to extend the standard to several manufacturers, thus ensuring that the weapon would be widely adopted, as it was widely available. Once it was not widely available (US regulations) sales obviously dropped, and being mainly a military-only weapon these days, it's been hurt by the adoption of other competing firearms such as the M-4 and M-16.
So as Mike likes to point out, it's another case of hanging on to the past instead of finding a better business model - if these weapons were available to the general public at a competitive price, they could make up for Military adoption of other weapons. The AK-47 is a very good weapon.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
All I know...
1. Who invented it? Eugene Stoner
2. What was its original model designation? XM16E1
3. What was its nickname by US toops in in Vietnam
4. What was the design originally intended for? .308 caliber
5. What is the current US Military model designation of the new generation of the M16 in current use? M-4
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
So what do they blame?
'Weak' IP laws.
'If we only had stronger IP laws, we could succeed'.
Not 'If we only didn't take on so much debt' or 'If we could improve the value of our product'.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]