In The Generative Internet, Professor Jonathan Zittrain proposes viewing the Internet and its connected PCs as a unitary grid for generative (innovative, productive) activity. Jonathan Zittrain, The Generative Internet, Harvard Law Review, Vol. 119, p. 1974, May 2006. This “generative grid” faces attacks from security viruses, spam and other threats, which consumers, industry as well as lawmakers attempt to contain for stability. 1975. Zittrain argues that sustaining generativity is important because “we rely upon the Internet and PCs for applications that we deem vital.” 2030.

The paper has consequences for the net neutrality and intellectual property debates, as well as Internet regulation. It is important because it not only acknowledges distinct phases in technological innovation (something open source folks adamently refuse to do) that may require different regulatory frameworks, but proposes forward moving policies within this view: “we should instead carefully tailor reforms to address those vulnerabilities with minimal impact on generativity.” 1995.

On the issue of net neutrality, Professor Zittrain writes:

Those who make paramount “network neutrality” derived from end to- end theory confuse means and ends, focusing on “network” without regard to a particular network policy’s influence on the design of network endpoints… advocates of end-to-end are too often myopic; … If complete fidelity to end-to-end network neutrality persists, our PCs may be replaced by information appliances or may undergo a transformation… that betrays the very principles that animate end-to-end theory. 1978.

The much-touted differences between free and proprietary PC OSs may not capture what is most important to the Internet’s future. Proprietary systems can remain “open,” as many do, by permitting unaffiliated third parties to write superseding programs and permitting PC owners to install these programs without requiring any gate keeping by the OS provider… debates about the future of our PC experience should focus less on such common battles as Linux versus Microsoft Windows, as both are “open” under this definition... 1978.

…to Professor Lessig… this Article seeks to explain why drawing a bright line against nearly any form of increased Internet regulability is no longer tenable. Those concerned about preserving flexibility in Internet behavior and coding should participate meaningfully in debates about changes to network and PC architecture, helping to ameliorate rather than ignore the problems caused by such flexibility that, if left unchecked, will result in unfortunate, hamhanded changes to the way mainstream consumers experience cyberspace. 1979.

Precisely because the future is uncertain, those who care about openness and the innovation that today’s Internet and PC facilitate should not sacrifice the good to the perfect — or the future to the present — by seeking simply to maintain a tenuous technological status quo in the face of inexorable pressure to change. 1977.

…consumer applications were nowhere to be found until the Internet began accepting commercial interconnections without requiring academic or government research justifications, and the population at large was solicited to join. This historical development — the withering away of the norms against commercial use and broad interconnection that had been reflected in a NSF admonishment that its contribution to the functioning Internet backbone be used for noncommercial purposes — greatly increased the Internet’s generativity. It opened development of networked technologies to a broad, commercially driven audience that individual companies running proprietary services did not think to invite and that the original designers of the Internet would not have thought to include in the design process. 1900.

posted by Noel Le @ 1:31 PM | Markets: Business, Investment & Innovation

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