We Want You!

Sounds like a good effort.

Although I tend to disagree with Jim Harper and Tim Lee, this may be a valuable effort.

Several issues are worth examining, as I believe they don’t receive sufficient treatment in current literature on peer production:

1)how does “peer production” relate to the practice of IP firms collaborating through IP licensing and joint development? 2)explain in more depth “economic freedom.” 3)how does commercial and non-commercial peer production differ? What are areas where one may be more suitable than the other? 4)what is the significance of different meanings of “economic activity?” 5)what is peer production’s benefit to consumer welfare, innovation and technological progress? 6)how is the decentralized trait of peer production, as described by Professor Benkler, different from the decentralized system of innovation enabled by IPRs. 7)is peer production a push or pull phenomenon? 8)what are some limitations to the benefits of peer production?

I am curious though, what “major think tank” would publish this?

Sounds like a good effort.

Although I tend to disagree with Jim Harper and Tim Lee, this may be a valuable effort.

Several issues are worth examining, as I believe they don’t receive sufficient treatment in current literature on peer production:

1)how does “peer production” relate to the practice of IP firms collaborating through IP licensing and joint development?
2)explain in more depth “economic freedom.”
3)how does commercial and non-commercial peer production differ? What are areas where one may be more suitable than the other?
4)what is the significance of different meanings of “economic activity?”
5)what is peer production’s benefit to consumer welfare, innovation and technological progress?
6)how is the decentralized trait of peer production, as described by Professor Benkler, different from the decentralized system of innovation enabled by IPRs.
7)is peer production a push or pull phenomenon?
8)what are some limitations to the benefits of peer production?

I am curious though, what “major think tank” would publish this?

Noel:

Those all sound like good topics for inclusion in the paper. You should click on over to the wiki and add them to the outline.

As for who would be publishing the paper, we’ll cross that bridge when we come to it.

Noel:

Those all sound like good topics for inclusion in the paper. You should click on over to the wiki and add them to the outline.

As for who would be publishing the paper, we’ll cross that bridge when we come to it.

Sure, I’ll add them to the outline, when I have time…

Still, if the paper is available online, you should save some parts of the project only for the print version, to induce someone to publish it. Perhaps including introductory remarks or comments by policy makers in the print version will be enough added value.

Sure, I’ll add them to the outline, when I have time…

Still, if the paper is available online, you should save some parts of the project only for the print version, to induce someone to publish it. Perhaps including introductory remarks or comments by policy makers in the print version will be enough added value.

I think what has not been established is why open source developers should be subject to patent law, at all, until they start a business based on their work. I can understand suing Red Hat for a patent violation, but why should SAMBA be bound to respect Microsoft’s patents? I see no reason since they are not producing it for commercial purposes.

I think what has not been established is why open source developers should be subject to patent law, at all, until they start a business based on their work. I can understand suing Red Hat for a patent violation, but why should SAMBA be bound to respect Microsoft’s patents? I see no reason since they are not producing it for commercial purposes.

MikeT: Because they distribute it. If you produce something for personal use only and it infringes patents, that’s one thing. You’re allowed to play with your computer and code things for yourself, that should be fair play. Once you distribute it at large, you effectively stole someone’s invention (assuming that particular patent stands, which is not always clear). It does not matter whether you’re selling it or giving it away. Otherwise, what’s to stop any large company from replicating any small business’ invention and distributing it for free, thereby making them go out of business? Patent laws were also made to protect these people. In my opinion, distribution makes the difference between fair use and illegality. Anybody have jurisprudence to back me up?

MikeT: Because they distribute it. If you produce something for personal use only and it infringes patents, that’s one thing. You’re allowed to play with your computer and code things for yourself, that should be fair play. Once you distribute it at large, you effectively stole someone’s invention (assuming that particular patent stands, which is not always clear). It does not matter whether you’re selling it or giving it away. Otherwise, what’s to stop any large company from replicating any small business’ invention and distributing it for free, thereby making them go out of business? Patent laws were also made to protect these people. In my opinion, distribution makes the difference between fair use and illegality. Anybody have jurisprudence to back me up?

I dont think the fair use doctrine pertains. But Charles you state the issues well. FOSS supporters should know the significance of distribution as its central to the GPL and DMCA. Also MikeT, Charles hinted at a good point- intentions dont matter and legal status of a developers work can be decided after the code is written.

I dont think the fair use doctrine pertains. But Charles you state the issues well. FOSS supporters should know the significance of distribution as its central to the GPL and DMCA. Also MikeT, Charles hinted at a good point- intentions dont matter and legal status of a developers work can be decided after the code is written.