Home Page
05.28.2004 (previous | next)
Kill Bill (as in Gates)

Forbes (June 7, 2004)(subscription required), has an article "Kill Bill: IBM Takes on Microsoft." The piece is about the billions of dollars that IBM is putting into open source software, particularly Linux.

At PFF, we are acolytes of Schumpeter's view that the gales of creative destruction unleashed by capitalism constitute its greatest virtue -- a colleague calls it Schumpeter's Trumpet. In consequence, we view contests between corporate giants as sporting events. If IBM wants to bet that the way to go is to commoditize the operating system and sell services and hardware, while Microsoft and Sun think it better to make the software so robust that services are unnecessary -- well, folks, we've got a ball game going tonight.

But there is a deeper import to this news of IBM support. The Free Culture Movement holds up open source software as a model of production that can be replicated in other areas, ranging from books to music to pharmaceuticals. Indeed, in his recent and highly-praised (though not by me) book Free Culture, Larry Lessig pays tribute to Richard Stallman, the most anti-market of the founders of the open source movement, a man who believes that using proprietary software is immoral: "[A]s I reread Stallman's own work . . . I realize that all of the theoretical insights I develop here are insights Stallman described decades ago."

In my view, the idea that we can dispense with the market system for the production of creative products and rely instead on cooperatives funded via some unspecified other mechanism, perhaps a tax on hardware, is dangerous and demented. Others disagree with me -- that, too, is what makes ball games. But, I submit, if in reality the open source software movement is increasingly dependent on IBM, then the moral pretensions of the Free Culture Movement to be achieving something beyond the morality of the marketplace stand discredited. And this is important, because it allows us to see the contest for what it is -- an economic and business debate over the best way to produce the proper mix of software, hardware, and services, not the dawning of Cyberman, a new species devoid of greed and selfishness.

posted by James DeLong @ 8:21 AM | General

Link to this Entry | Printer-Friendly | Email a Comment | Post a Comment(0)









 
IPcentral WebLog

Blog Main

IPcentral Blogosphere Archives

Search the Blog

Recent Posts
  - IP and Marginal Cost
- Academics and Copyright
- More on Jammie Thomas from DOJ
- More Studies of Downloading
- Facebook, MySpace, and Network Externalities
- Copyright and the University: An Academic Symposium
- Tyler Cowan on Chinese Movie Piracy
- More WHO Antics--Roger Bate Reports
- Patents, Meds, and the Developing World: Clips & Links
- Jermaine Dupri's Gripe with iTunes
Archives by Month
  - December 2007
- November 2007
- October 2007
- September 2007
  - (see all)
Archives by Subject
  - Academia
- Access: Commons, Fair Use, Orphan Works, Public Domain
- Accounting
- Analog Holes
- Antitrust
- Art
- Aspen
- Big Tent
- Biotech
- Books
- Comments from Readers
- Counterfeit
- Digital Americas
- Digital Europe
- Digital Europe 2006
- DMCA
- DRM & Watermarks, etc.
- Economics, Game Theory & Public Choice
- Enforcement & Remedies
- Free Culture Movement
- Games
- General
- Infrastructure
- International
- Internet: P2P, Search Engines...
- Legislation and Legislators
- Liberty and IP
- Markets: Business, Investment & Innovation
- Media: Video, Music...
- Patents
- Pharma
- Physical Property
- Prices, Terms, and Licensing
- Privacy and Security
- Radio
- Software
- Spectrum & Wireless
- Standards
- Supreme Court
- Tax-Funded IP
- Telecom
- Theft of Service
- Universities
Links
 

Site Feed

  - Atom
- RSS 1.0
- RSS 2.0
We welcome comments by email - look for a link to the author's email address in the byline of each post. Please let us know if we may publish your remarks.


 
Home Page