Intellectual Property Infringement: That's Why We Have This Rice To Eat Today
from the it's-how-we-innovate dept
Miranda N. points us to this short NY Times story about a study into the genetic history of two popular subspecies of rice, in which new research shows that the two are actually quite closely related. What the study showed was that, through cross-breeding the two subspecies, each was able to take on the best characteristics of the other, while tossing off less desirable features (survival of the fittest at work). But, what makes it interesting is the quote at the end from one of the researchers:The story of rice is really a story of how human civilization has progressed through borrowing, Dr. Wu said, adding:Now, obviously, before anyone goes nuts in the comments, this has nothing to do with intellectual property laws, which quite clearly did not exist when all of this was happening. And, certainly, Dr. Wu appears to have been just making a little joke, which made its way into the final line of a short human interest piece. However the point is actually one worth repeating, which is that the history of innovation is the history of borrowing from others, adding it to something else, building on what works, and discarding what doesn't work. The really troubling part is how we seek to limit such efforts today, in the name of "intellectual property."
"Intellectual property infringement has occurred since the beginning of civilization. That�s why we have this rice to eat today."
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: borrowing, intellectual property, rice
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
survival of the fittest
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: survival of the fittest
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Fitness function
So, selection of a species' characteristics by humans is still survival of the fittest at work - but with fittest now being "with characteristics humans find more desirable".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: survival of the fittest
Either humans are inherently part of the system and thereby a natural part of its ecology (wherein the significance of your statement is reduced to:the system interacts with itself) OR they are outside the system and thereby accountable to outcomes outside of the evolutionary/ecological forces that act so powerfully upon them(wherein your comments might actually make sense).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: survival of the fittest
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Just give me my rightfully earned millions and shut the fuck up.
That's right, I dont even care enough to pretend any more. Now lube up some of my artists and get me some grapefruits.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
i mean, how can you be properly compensated unless you get payed for every breath you take?
everybody else? damn freetards, how dare you breath their air! pay up or stop breathing!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
I'm a walking factory of life. Why aren't you all paying me for keeping you alive? Freetards!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
ps: Just curious.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
A nice link for anyone who wants to confirm that nitrogen is a big part of the atmosphere.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
ps: maybe something to do with nitrogen being fixated on the vegetables you eat producing rich nitrogen human manure that the freetards get for free :)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Technology in evolution
It expresses the fact that technology is an evolutionary process, just like agriculture. When IP laws are used in the attempt to stop technological evolution, everybody loses.
Unfortunately, change is inevitable but progress is not.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Technology in evolution
You have to remember that we are just about 30 years in the commercial cell phone universe, which is a bat of the eye in terms of history. We are only 20 years into GSM style cellular networks, even less time.
Yet in that time, we have gone from a motorola brick style phone to smart phones and beyond. We have multiple companies making multiple products, we have different systems and choices for voice, data, and messenging, and all that combined to offer us products that nobody would have considered viable even 10 years ago, such as the Ipad or Android based smart phones.
Now, Mike Masnick will go on and on about the patent thicket and all sorts of other misdirections, but the reality is in your hands: You have an innovative product that borrows from existing ideas, adds some more, building on what works and discarding what doesn't.
As a bonus, we also have multiple avenues and roads taken to the best results. There are different types of networks, different types of data systems, and so on that have been conceived, built, and tried. Rather than being stuck on a single concept (which is what patent minimalists try to claim happens), we have seen an incredible spread of technology and ideas as everyone worked to come up with a better way to solve the puzzle and get the best products into the public's hands.
All of this happening in a world packed with patents, copyrights, trademarks, and the like.
If the patent-minimalists were right, we would just be starting to enjoy 2G cellular service, with phones slightly smaller than the motorola brick, which would have been the only phone for the last 20 years. Thankfully, their fear mongering is for naught, as I can sit on my Ipad and post comments like this without any problem.
It sucks for them when the system works. No, Chicken Little, the sky isn't falling, that is just the digital zoom on the integrated 8MP camera in your smart phone letting you see up close.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Technology in evolution
Is what we see today the best possible of all worlds, the fastest technological acceleration possible, all thanks to strong and plentiful IP law?
Maybe we are abysmally slow developing, precisely because of patents and copyright. Only we can't see it until years from now.
I dont know. And I propose that you don't know either.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Technology in evolution
All I know at this point is that Moore's Law seems to be doing well, and I rarely feel like "damn, I only have one company that can sell me this sort of technology". Instead, we are in a world of plenty, with tons of choices, options, competing systems, OSes, and designs.
I can't say that the current situation is one that has left us deprived of anything.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Technology in evolution
One example I have read about is how, after patents on the first steam engines expired, innovation in the field exploded. So, at least in that case patents were holding things back.
We will know about the current situation in the future, once the patents holding us back expire (the only good thing about patents is that, unlike copyrights, they expire).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Technology in evolution
During the patent period, I can bet that two things were happening:
1) People were looking for alternates to steam power. I don't know if any discoveries came at the same time, but clearly "power" (steam or otherwise) was the future, and
2) People were working to improve the steam engine setup and the machinery around it, such that when the patent expired, they were quick to market with improvements.
Patents are not a period of time where "nothing happens", that is an old wives tale (or is that old bloggers tale?).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Technology in evolution
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Technology in evolution
It's also likely a legal fail.
So now that I have answered your misdirection style question, how about addressing the points above instead?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Technology in evolution
Quote:
Also you got the Wright brothers story too, they single handed staled aviation in America for decades, only after world war II America really started to innovate but because they saw how the Germans where so far ahead of them with jets and stealth aircraft(i.e. Horten Ho 229).
Also the most innovative and productive eras of American industry where the times where IP where not really enforced.
IP laws lead to the tragedy of the anti-commons, which is the name given to the observed phenomenon of ownership being detrimental to development.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Technology in evolution
"Also the most innovative and productive eras of American industry where the times where IP where not really enforced." - [citation needed]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Technology in evolution
The most brilliant minds of all times mostly didn't care about the commercial side of things, why do they did the things they did?
Copernicus, Archimedes, Da Vinci, Einstein, Nicolai Tesla just to name a few.
As for the citation needed, can you provide a citation to where in the 50's and 60's the apogee of the American industrialization people cared about IP laws?
From what I know about it, IP was there but was not enforced or taken really seriously, only after the 80's things started to change.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Technology in evolution
Source: James Watt: Monopolist
Mises Daily: Saturday, January 17, 2009 by Michele Boldrin and David K. Levine
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Technology in evolution
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Technology in evolution
Isn't the need for a better enginge a motivation that's good enough already?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Technology in evolution
At least that is what I get from your 6:07am post.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Technology in evolution
I am certain patents are causing more harm then good.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Technology in evolution
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Technology in evolution
Excessive litigation does have a price tag, and it has hurt both the US & World economy. While John Stossel's recent report on frivoles lawsuits and problems-caused-by-lawyers skirted the "IP" mess in the report, the same concerns about lables-for-morons applies to IP litigation as well.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Technology in evolution
If the patent-minimalists were right, we would just be starting to enjoy 2G cellular service, with phones slightly smaller than the motorola brick, which would have been the only phone for the last 20 years. Thankfully, their fear mongering is for naught, as I can sit on my Ipad and post comments like this without any problem.
Most of the underlying technology for mobile phones is old enough to be out of patent protection.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Technology in evolution
What a waste.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Technology in evolution
That is what happens in America, a few companies produce anything and stop others from entering the result is less competition and less innovation, with less variety, with higher costs.
Of all places why is China having thousands of different models, from hundreds of manufacturer's.
Have you seen what they do there? thousands of handsets available at rock bottom prices, now go look at an American store and get frustrated to find out that you only get a very limited set of what is out there.
Also there is one thing you forgot, those phones are all manufactured in Asia, at least the ones people want to buy, now ask if they enforce the IP craziness you think it is so important?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Technology in evolution
In fact, it's probably not unfair to say that most of the innovation that does exist in the cell phone space is really just parasitic use of the innovation from the internet at large -- almost every new cell phone feature you encounter is just a copy of something already in use on the web.
You might have a better case for the hardware, but even there the situation is ambiguous at best. The clear winners in hardware have been standardized commodity systems and even cell phones rely heavily on shared production of basic components and reliance on open standards for inter-component buses.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Technology in evolution
It took online connections a very long time to make it up to a reasonable speed. 30-35 years ago we were on 45.45 baudot connections, and got excited when we made it up to 110 baud. 300 baud was an absolute godsend, and 1200 then 2400 baud pretty much blew everyone away. We didn't make it to 28.8 modems until 1994, at the start of the commercial internet era.
Cellular networks on the other hand are only 30 years old overall, and already we have voice, data, video streaming, and all sorts of other high speed offerings. In fact, we have competing standards for both voice and a data, and data transmission speed (2G, 3G, 3.5G, 4G) continue to move up quickly on the technology side.
On the roll out side, you have regulatory issues and monopoly / lack of competition issues that fail to drive the market. But purely on the technology side, your cell phone is outpacing what happened on the internet, and will continue to do so.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Why we have a (superior) rice to eat today
If there had been a (reasonable) IP system, they would have had a motivation for doing it, and doing it right away (note that I am not talking about our IP system, which is not reasonable).
We would have had superior rice earlier, and might have progressed more than we have.
But wait! We aren't interested in being reasonable, our only motivation is to prove that since the present system is defective, any possible system under any circumstances is unreasonable! So, time to turn off our brains.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
No particular motivation?
Having better yields and less losses for your crops is not a good enough motivation?
Having a tastier and thus better-selling product is not a good enough motivation?
You do not need to forbid others from advancing for any of these motivations.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: No particular motivation?
You have to measure the motivation in general against the term of a patent granted. If a patent last 20 years, is the end result today (better rice) worth the trade off? Would we have the "better rice" under a non-reward system in 10 years? 20 years? 50 years? Nature takes millennia to evolve. Are you willing to wait that long to see?
It's why many arguments against patents are flawed, as far as I am concerned. The reward system that exists encourages investment, risk, and concentrated efforts to move forward. The anti-patent people will often claim after a patent is issued that "we would have thought of it!", but they rarely address the time frame issue. I am willing to give up a 20 year patent on something if it gets it to me 20 or more years sooner. Heck,I might even give it up if it gets it to me 5 years sooner (especially if it cures something I am dying of).
You really have to consider the alternatives, the time it would take, and how things would work without the system in place. We benefit greatly from the advances that come from in the investments of time, money, and manpower to find better solutions. Without them, would we be evolving as fast as we are?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: No particular motivation?
You are thinking about only one cycle. But innovation builds on previous innovations (much like the "tech tree" you can find on some video games). Even if this innovation got to you a few years sooner, for 20 years innovation building on that is blocked for all but a few players. Then innovation building on that is blocked for 20 more years. And so on. So instead of shorter innovation cycles, you are stretching them for the time the innovation gets locked up.
It is much better to have something 5 years later but be able to build on it sooner than having it 5 years earlier but then be forbidden from building on it for 20 years.
And as for the reward system... Well, it encourages getting the broadest possible patents to lock up your competitors, use the fact that you have a monopoly on a particular area to jack up the prices, and so on. The negatives outweigh the positives. There are ways of encouraging R&D which do not have such social downsides.
My opinion is that, without patents, we would be evolving faster than we are.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: No particular motivation?
Overbroad patents will always be an issue, but for the most part they don't kill the system. There will be people willing to abuse any system that is in place, and we cannot allow the exceptional cases to determine overall policy.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: No particular motivation?
Quote:
Source: James Watt: Monopolist
Mises Daily: Saturday, January 17, 2009 by Michele Boldrin and David K. Levine
Now imagine if that engine was patented in parts by thousands of different people at different times, we could be talking about a hundred years of patents, and with each further iteration being patented as well things start to move mighty slowly, while others start to move faster because they can't or don't fallow IP laws.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: No particular motivation?
The problem is that these cases are NOT exceptional. There has been serious patent abuse in every significant technological development in the last 250 years except for those inventions which occurred around the second world war (eg jet engine, computer, nuclear technology).
Why were those inventions (relatively) immune? Because the imperative of fighting the war forced governments to basically switch off the patent system for the duration. The resulting burst of progress produced the great (relative) prosperity of the 1950s (you've never had it so good!) and fuelled the progress that we still benefit from today. To a large extent our progress still feeds off those wartime inventions.
The patent maximalists have no case - the experiment with abandoning patents has been done and it worked.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: No particular motivation?
ii) Lets further assume that B builds on A in some way that would be patent infringement. C builds on B in the same way and so on until we have E building on D.
iii) We also assume that each of these technologies "kills" the previous ones.
iv) We next assume that the creator of each technology is happy with the status quo, earning good money with little competition due to the threat of patent litigation, thus showing the lack of forward thinking and innovation we have learned to love in our benevolent overlords.
Under these assumptions, the time to get technology E into the hands of the consumers takes as long as it takes patent D to expire, assuming the inventors of E have laid down the groundwork during D's patent period.
This is 4 x PantentTime (A,B,C and D being four patent periods).
The problem can then be isolated to two key points.
Assumption (iv) and patent times. If we fix either (or both) we shorten the innovation cycle.
If something is good enough to bring in a good revenue stream, there is little incentive to improve (or allow others to improve) upon it, expecially if it competes with your current line. Why make your own product obsolete (and potentially parts of the production chain) if you dont have to?
Patent times plays a part in this issue, as it allows a competition free period where there is no need to innovate, to push the envelope, to improve.
One solution could be shortening the patent times to the "sweet spot" where
a) companies are forced to fight tooth and nail to stay on top of the innovation curve, yet
b) have a high enough survival rate to acually get products to the consumer.
I dont have the exact answer, but I think it is less than 20.
PS in this post I use "assumption" in the mathematical sense, anyone ignoring that fact in a reply will be mocked. DS
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: No particular motivation?
By your logic, as the cell phone patents came off, there would be one single more cell phone design, and we would wait 20 more years to move. That just isn't the case. Not only was there more B solutions, but in reality there were multiple A solutions as well.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: No particular motivation?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: No particular motivation?
He did warn you and you paid no attention!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: No particular motivation?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: No particular motivation?
Look at the history of Frank Whittle before and after he let his patent lapse and you will see how wrong you are.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Sharing and the like only has one downside
In every other respect it is a good thing. More information shared is great, more culture and entertainment available to people is a good thing, more research shared leads to better research and so on.
So instead of curtailing all the good things for just one reason (money), let's curtail the one reason sharing is "bad" and redesign society so money goes the way of the dodo. There are many reasons to still do research, art and music - starting with the fact that research still benefits all mankind, and that artists usually create greatness because they have to create, not because someone pays them.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Sharing and the like only has one downside
[ link to this | view in chronology ]