Free Design

Anyone who cares to pay attention is aware that free and open source software like Linux or Firefox can compete head-to-head with proprietary programs. The computational skill of ideologically aligned programmers from the open source camp oftentimes leads to applications more powerful, flexible, and secure than their closed rivals. However, too often the value of open source is hidden too far below the surface.

In computing, like in other pursuits, judgments will be based upon initial reactions (see Blink by Malcolm Gladwell if you don't believe me). A book with an awful cover will often still be read (due to recommendations or, say, required summer reading...), but such may not be the case with computer software. Alternatives exist in applications, not books.

Another point: user-interface design is not just aesthetic like on a book. The poor placement of buttons and displays within a program can seriously hinder usability and productivity. Design is function.

This is something the open source community needs to take to heart. Useful programs like Audacity are marred by dastardly design which limits the approachability of the already alternative programs. Firefox and Ubuntu are arguably the most popular consumer open source applications and a lot of it has to do with the thoughtful design.

Another Reason to Listen to the Founding Fathers

Rufus Pollock of Cambridge University has released an economic paper analyzing the optimal duration of copyright. The first three and a half pages are approachable to all, but after that he dives into some tricky empiricism which leads him to conclude that the correct length of copyright from an economic standpoint is 14 years.

Although he recognizes the "significant implications for policy," I tend to doubt his work will be of much significance. Bear in mind that in Eldred v. Ashcroft, 17 leading economists (including 5 Nobel Prize winners!) submitted a brief establishing that the economic value of copyright extension was minimal.

It seems that the economics of lobbyists trumps academia.

[Pollock's Paper]

Putting Canadian "Piracy" in Perspective

Courtesy of the intrepid Michael Geist, a video correcting the record on the supposed rampant piracy up north.

Here and There

As you can see from my new post about patents, I'm back to blogging here.

You can also follow my other blog which is done through Tumblr in which I cover media, world affairs, technology and anything else which intrigues me. It's a lot of fun, so check it out.

[Bumblin' Along]

Government Grants Provided More Incentive to Innovate than Patents

James Bessen is the co-author of the forthcoming book "Do Patents Work?" and gave a highly enlightening speech at Duke which is available on iTunes (see below). His empirical studies of the patent system of the United States provides important insight into the ever-growing field of intellectual property.

The talk is filled with fascinating statistics like the fact that in 1991 the total value of US patents was $4 billion. In the same year, the US government provided R&D subsidies to US firms of $26 billion. If patents are supposed to serve as incentive to innovate, yet the government had to provide nearly 8 times as much incentive, there are serious issues with this form of property. Bessen blames, among other things, fuzzy boundaries and the tax of litigation (which has exploded recently).

[Link to iTunes]