Today's Quandry:
Listening to NPR this morning I can't help but feel like a foreigner to this world. What's going on?
I was listening to a review of the new Charlie's Angels movie, and then a commentary about a new play about politics.
In reference to the Charlie's Angels movie, the critic was talking about how over-the-top the picture was. It had very little content, but not for all the talent that went into it. The critic was bemoaning the fact that it was a picture that just tried too hard with stunts, camera angles, technical wizardry, etc. - but lacked the real content of a story or a plot. The movie sought to celebrate feminine empowerment, but tried to do so as if it could be accomplished through a music video. There was no unity of any kind, just three individuals with three stories that happened to be told in the form of a movie with the same title.
The story of the play on politics had to do with the marketing and sales of politicians, and how incestuous the whole thing has become. One side is trying to anticipate the moves of the other side, whom they know, while trying to direct a candidate who doesn't necessarily believe the hype that they are trying to sell.
Seems like there is so very little true creativity in the world. It used to be about novelty - trying something not done before, now it's all about technical perfection divorced from humanism.
Can't help feeling like I'm trapped on rewind - with each play things just get more and more intense, technically perfect, and yet stale at the same time.
Friday, June 27, 2003
Monday, June 23, 2003
Op-Ed: Business as usual, not!
It would appear that the battle of PR has started in the dispute of Unix vs. Linux computer software. [Re: I.B.M.'s Opponent in Suit Criticizes Linux Advocate, NY Times, June 18] The central premise of this dispute is intellectual property rights, and at the heart of this particular article is a statement by Linus Torvald, the original developer of Linux, who states "I do not look up any patents on principle because (a) it's a horrible waste of time and (b) I don't want to know." The background of this statement, which is not included in the article, is the very important 1992-93 lawsuit between Unix System Laboratories and Novell vs. the University of California at Berkeley [UCB] over this very same issue. According to opensource.org, the court ruling in that case, which established the basis of Mr. Torvald’s response, was that there was so very little of the original Unix code in the version disseminated by UCB that the case was untenable.
What is more important to the present argument however, is a much older encounter, that of the old guard business model of closed door development and licensed ownership versus the new model of nonproprietary ownership and cooperative innovation. The battle being waged is not merely about the intellectual property rights brazenly asserted by SCO – the current owner of the original Novell version – in it’s suit against I.B.M., but the future of software innovation, and computer technology as a whole.
The old guard business model, pioneered at the beginning of the past century, primarily consisted of individuals or corporations independently funding and developing competing products for commercial use. At the heart of this schema is a winner take all mentality, wherein one seeks to dominate the market and dictate product standards. While this schema may have served itself well during the industrial age, it is anathema to the information age, where standards must be agreed upon by multiple developers to establish baseline uniformity as a standard from which to innovate from. The suit launched by SCO would have us return to the old days where development is limited and innovation is stifled; where tech companies are forced to compete against one another and use differing computer standards, to the detriment of consumers. The avante guard, on the other hand, has taken the requirements of the information age to heart, witness stodgy, old I.B.M.’s conversion to the growing cooperative model. The benefits of cooperation are such that all “tech” companies can essentially use the same standard and evolve in a manner that keeps technical innovation away from monopolistic bottlenecks.
This “same standard” means that companies can share in research and development, and individual hardware producers are not beholden to any one software developer, ultimately resulting in cheaper and more reliable products for the consumer. The old guard model, on the other hand, would merely concentrate chaotic power – through constantly shifting technology standards – in the hands of a few individuals, or corporations. While some may argue that this older model allows easier understanding of near limitless possibility, it is precisely this limiting which threatens our technological future. The ability to mass produce technology requires a dependable, same standard to allow for longer production cycles, which would be shortened to allow for production of multiple, or ever changing, standards if we were to revert to the old guard model.
Ultimately what this case needs is a clear message to those who spill the proverbial “hot coffee” and seek to collect monies for injuries allegedly suffered. The new cooperative model is far too busy solving real technology issues than to deal with questions already settled, vis-à-vis the Berkeley case. The situation of SCO’s failed business model should not open the door for after-the-fact lawsuits.
It would appear that the battle of PR has started in the dispute of Unix vs. Linux computer software. [Re: I.B.M.'s Opponent in Suit Criticizes Linux Advocate, NY Times, June 18] The central premise of this dispute is intellectual property rights, and at the heart of this particular article is a statement by Linus Torvald, the original developer of Linux, who states "I do not look up any patents on principle because (a) it's a horrible waste of time and (b) I don't want to know." The background of this statement, which is not included in the article, is the very important 1992-93 lawsuit between Unix System Laboratories and Novell vs. the University of California at Berkeley [UCB] over this very same issue. According to opensource.org, the court ruling in that case, which established the basis of Mr. Torvald’s response, was that there was so very little of the original Unix code in the version disseminated by UCB that the case was untenable.
What is more important to the present argument however, is a much older encounter, that of the old guard business model of closed door development and licensed ownership versus the new model of nonproprietary ownership and cooperative innovation. The battle being waged is not merely about the intellectual property rights brazenly asserted by SCO – the current owner of the original Novell version – in it’s suit against I.B.M., but the future of software innovation, and computer technology as a whole.
The old guard business model, pioneered at the beginning of the past century, primarily consisted of individuals or corporations independently funding and developing competing products for commercial use. At the heart of this schema is a winner take all mentality, wherein one seeks to dominate the market and dictate product standards. While this schema may have served itself well during the industrial age, it is anathema to the information age, where standards must be agreed upon by multiple developers to establish baseline uniformity as a standard from which to innovate from. The suit launched by SCO would have us return to the old days where development is limited and innovation is stifled; where tech companies are forced to compete against one another and use differing computer standards, to the detriment of consumers. The avante guard, on the other hand, has taken the requirements of the information age to heart, witness stodgy, old I.B.M.’s conversion to the growing cooperative model. The benefits of cooperation are such that all “tech” companies can essentially use the same standard and evolve in a manner that keeps technical innovation away from monopolistic bottlenecks.
This “same standard” means that companies can share in research and development, and individual hardware producers are not beholden to any one software developer, ultimately resulting in cheaper and more reliable products for the consumer. The old guard model, on the other hand, would merely concentrate chaotic power – through constantly shifting technology standards – in the hands of a few individuals, or corporations. While some may argue that this older model allows easier understanding of near limitless possibility, it is precisely this limiting which threatens our technological future. The ability to mass produce technology requires a dependable, same standard to allow for longer production cycles, which would be shortened to allow for production of multiple, or ever changing, standards if we were to revert to the old guard model.
Ultimately what this case needs is a clear message to those who spill the proverbial “hot coffee” and seek to collect monies for injuries allegedly suffered. The new cooperative model is far too busy solving real technology issues than to deal with questions already settled, vis-à-vis the Berkeley case. The situation of SCO’s failed business model should not open the door for after-the-fact lawsuits.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)