Symbsys 209

9 responses so far ↓

• 1    gnewman // Nov 13, 2007 at 1:23 am

  The excerpt from Steal This Idea really got me thinking. I want to thank who ever put this excerpt in because the way that our pharmaceutical companies operate has always frustrated me. It has also frustrated me that when I mention my problems with pharmaceutical companies (that pharmaceutical companies on average spend twice as much on marketing as they do on R&D, and that their choice of drug research is so blatantly dollar driven) that I am usally told that if it was not for the capital than the drugs would not be made. Essentially the response is: our current model has some problems, but that on the whole it is the best that we can do. I also have heard that the United State is responsible for more than half of the drug research in the world (Wikipedia has the that Untied States comprises 45% of the market, but that certainly is not the same thing). Of course if one looks on the wikipedia article on pharmaceutical companies it has two sections dedicated to general controversies of the industry: one is on controversies on how they perform their own clinical testing and the other is to show the possible problems when they market their drugs to doctors, two points that were not even mentioned in the reading. Yet the reading was successful in demonstrating the ridiculousness of the level of patent protection that the US government gives these companies.

  But, and this is a big but, I am still NOT convinced that the industry can be improved completely. I am starting to think more skeptically that the problem is partly a nature of the beast. I’m sure that Micheal Perelman would not have me believe this case. And I’m sure that overall profits of the pharmaceutical companies would at least allow me to agree that SOME change is needed. However, what are substantive measures that we could take other than completely obliterating our standard patent laws. I propose one idea:

  What if there was free patent mechanism like one that we see for GNU general public license in the code sector. I have no idea how this would work, and I know that Richard Stallman (the guy who’s work I’m reading) would try to remind me that a copyright is completely different than a patent. However, I can’t help but think how amazing it would be if the work of universities and public funding could be in concert. Better yet that they could be available to all for the small price that any research that was based on previous research would have to remain nonmarket driven. The big question with this proposal is how drugs would actually be produced on a grand scale for use, and I’m not so sure, yet. But I still find this idea awful appealing, which makes me believe that I couldn’t have been the first person to think of it.

• 2    jarobb3 // Nov 13, 2007 at 10:25 am

  According to Lessig, the major players in media have a strong enough lobby in Washington to push laws through Congress that will protect them against the new possibilities of competition created by the Internet. I want to ask the following question: why is it that Americans put up with the blatant injustices that, for example, forces internet radio to pay fees when radio does not have to (Lessig 197-199)? Benkler might say that TV and passive culture is the opium of the masses, and inertia is a strong “tendency” within the natural world.

  When I read Lessig citing the The New York Times as reporting that 20% of Americans illegally download music in 2002, I saw the extent of this inertia. These were my two immediate thoughts (in order):

  (1) Well, 80% of the country doesn’t download music therefore the law represents the opinion of an overwhelming amount of the country.
  (2) Wait, why in the world was 80% of the country paying for their music? That just doesn’t make sense.

  While we’re talking about how intellectual property introduces inefficiencies in the market, talking about how intellectual property eliminates the element of competition that drives creativity and innovation in a free market system, 80% of Americans object to the gifts the network brings when there are ways around IP law. To pay for something that one can easily get for free is, well, un-American. Are 80% of Americans un-American? Maybe the inefficiency of the market has contaminated our spirit, softened the souls of cutthroat capitalists. Maybe Americans are really not all about saving a buck. Maybe Americans do take into account the lives we affect before we make acquisitions.

  Or maybe that’s only when our choices encroach upon the lifestyles of the rich. Most of the shoes that we wear were made in sweatshops in southeast Asia. Most (speaking as a Southerner) of the cars we drive consume ridiculous amounts of fossil fuels. Any raise in taxes is hell; the politician who does so, the devil. In my opinion, our sympathies for the entertainment and software industries are the exception rather than the rule when it comes to the current cultural climate. I believe that Benkler has a point, that the culture is a slave to those who control the idiot boxes of our lives. Crusaders for “free culture” must accept that what takes place in the courtroom is little more than pageantry, that their side cannot win the war in suits and ties. Their march towards victory requires a careful flanking of enemy attacks, involves cutting a path through the minds of the 80% of America who are reluctant to put their hand in the cookie jar.

  Framing is the issue. Of the same population who continually search for the next get-rich-quick scheme, 80% refuse to use the internet to get free music. Perhaps this is the way we should think about downloading. When I receive a check from my employer, I do not just think that it’s right to pocket it — I believe that it is my right. Instead of abstract debates about economics and inefficiencies, Benkler should have described the costless fruits of the network economy as the just rewards to those who give the best years of their lives to the American economy in the hope that the economy, and/or the government, rewards them in their later years. Considering the opposition to universal healthcare and the cries for the crucifixion of Social Security, I believe the common American is at least entitled to the smaller perks emerging from the blood and sweat of the times. Americans are the cast in the elaborate production called the American economy. Without the tacit agreement of the lowliest janitor to play his part, the world that breathes life into Hollywood and the music industry would not exist. Regardless of the distance between me and the nearest recording studio, the sacrifice of my time and energy to perpetuate an America in which a decent singer can make a CD and distribute it gives me the right to take some credit for that CD.

  One can talk about public goods and marginal costs until one is blue in the face. The most compelling truth is that Americans have a fundamental right to all that the economy produces. I’ll say it again: Americans have a right to the products the American economy produces. In the case of private goods, we trust the free market to decide who is more deserving of goods that are scarce and cannot be given to everyone. There are no such limitations to information — fruits that fall freely to the ground so that even the little people may have a taste. The battleplan for Benkler and the gang is simple. Convince the reluctant 80% of their entitlement, and the opposition will fall in spite of lobbying strength. In the end, politicians (and therefore judges) need votes, not money.

• 3    johnmagdaleno // Nov 13, 2007 at 2:02 pm

  The Wikinomics article a refreshing update to our previous readings. I felt the tone of the book was largely optimistic; while recognizing challenges, it focused much of its text on the opportunities and examples which demonstrated those opportunities.

  The passages on Intel’s Open University Network (pp. 175-176) demonstrated a viable business model for companies to deliver shareholder value while participating in (and even assisting in the evolution of) the open, collaborative sharing model that the author describes. As the author notes, “[m]aking radical changes in the product’s capabilities, underlying architecture, or associated business models could cannibalize sales or lead to costly realignments of strategy and business infrastructure” and in fact many businesses avoid such changes, but not as a conscious, desired outcome. They often seek to break out of their established molds to be more innovative (as the existence of countless business books demonstrate). Why? The reliance on a set of established products, while profitable, is a risky endeavor in the long run. It is my experience that most companies do not like the image, but more importantly the long-term competitive risk of being stale. Executives spend large sums of money on high-priced consultants and reorganization efforts to develop better business models to encourage innovation and find efficiencies. Development of metrics based on morale, process efficiencies, and products (e.g., time-to-market and ratio of new-to-”cash cow” products) are common, although the improvements against these metrics are generally muted or nonexistent.

  This business psychosis does not exist in the consciousness of one “corporate ego,” but in each and every employee of the company. Companies may appear to outsiders as stale and content, but that reflection is not necessarily a desired image or consciously chosen outcome. The ability of company leaders to transform the thinking of every employee often proves difficult, costly, and risks negative consequences (such as higher staff turn-over, low efficiency due to low morale, etc.).

  But, Intel’s Open University Network might be a model by which large companies can better operate, maximize profits, be nimble and compete better, and have a better public image. These large companies currently contain many different functions to create, sell, and support products and/or services. There is an incredible cost of inefficiency due to their size, and realizing this, companies often re-organize to cut inefficient areas and encourage innovation. Perhaps, this money and energy is better spent as an investment function rather than as a management or leadership function. Large companies would identify new opportunities, establish a business plan and provide seed money for a spin-off company to go after an opportunity. As the author notes “corporate research teams have been unable to sustain high level of success over time.” (p. 176) Investing in many small, “new” research projects would be a means of combatting staleness, lack of creativity, and hedging their bets (through multiple smaller investments and also by enabling other investors to share some of the risk). There is a real advantage into funding research and participating in collaborative networks, especially under an Intel-like research agreement (p. 177), because it would enable them, like Intel and the pharmaceutical companies, to have access to many more raw inputs than they normally would have had, in order to identify new end-product, market-oriented opportunities. Finally, the market would be more fluid (i.e., fresh), flush with a large and small companies with a preeminent focus on entrepreneurialism and competing in a highly dynamic environment conducive to progress and innovation.

• 4    fwy08 // Nov 13, 2007 at 3:20 pm

  In the excerpt from Steal This Idea, Perelman suggests that “Perhaps if global warming continues to move tropical diseases into more temperate zones the major pharmaceutical corporations might display more interest in tropical diseases” (144). It will be very interesting to see this play out in the coming years. The ironic thing about this statement, however, is that as global warming creates opportunities for new challenges and disasters (drought, fire, flood, disease, wiping out natural crops, flourishing pests). It will throw off our systems and break our expectations. We will be faced with myriad choices in calamities to triage. And when faced with national or international issues that have immediate and irrecoverable consequences, there has been a tendency for increased degrees of cooperation (versus increased competitiveness). I would not be surprised to see that as the need for information increases under such circumstances (as we race for solutions) that organizations currently owning stores of information would free them for the benefit of mankind. Thereafter, if the world as we know it has not yet ceased to exist, it would not be a simple matter to withdraw that information or even reinforce antiquated intellectual property laws.

  The humor in it is that what will set the circumstances for change should probably have been enough to inspire change preemptively. The major obstacle however is simply that our motivations and goals really do not waver much from maximizing utility in good times to surviving in rough times. Good will must be self-sustaining without an artificial helping hand from institutions like the government, which must have prioritized such in their responsibilities (and we know how difficult that can be.)

• 5    dreadpirateroberts // Nov 13, 2007 at 5:19 pm

  From the readings it is made readily apparent that there is much more at stake than whether or not a mix tape violates the rights of a recording artist. I do agree with Lessig that art is important to the human condition and laws shaping the world to how content cooperations think it should be is wrong(the justification of internet radio regulations Lessig 199) but the misuse of patent and law is much more dire when the pharmaceutical companies are the ones doing it.

  The section from “Steal this Idea” frankly horrified me (probably the intent). Granted, businesses and companies are there to make money, otherwise they’d be non-profit. But, the idea the companies freely give out their products than admit how much profit would be turned by those products is unnerving (Steal… 140).

  However, I don’t believe that all of their sins listed are equal. Benkler himself has made a case as to why it is *not* immoral to make acne meds for American teenagers even though logic might dictate that acne is temporary and AIDS (as of now) is a long lasting illness. Using this, and also my opinions, I don’t think making pet medicines(140) is evil either. Perhaps these are previously concocted drugs that humans did not respond to, but the lab bunnies did. It is a viable market, and one that doesn’t toy with human lives. In fact, maybe the breakthroughs made in that field could help with human medicines.

  That said, the infighting taking place between members of the drug industry is disheartening. Denying the promise of hope to helping the survival of premature babies (135-136), pushing for the less effective but more patented drug (134), and generally clinging to patents to extend money as needed (136-137) is doing much more harm than good.

  The question is, would winning the rights to use Mickey Mouse in a piece of art perhaps lay the legal path to allow drugs to be developed to better serve humanity, not stockholders?

• 6    dulcinea // Nov 13, 2007 at 5:32 pm

  Two interesting perspectives, one from Lessig’s chapter and one from today’s New York Times, combine to make an interesting point about the effect of enforcing outdated intellectual property laws:

  http://www.news.com/Democrats-Colleges-must-police-copyright%2C-or-else/2100-1028_3-6217943.html?tag=nefd.lede and
  http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/11/13/bill-would-make-colleges-copyright-cops/index.html

  and

  “Overregulation corrupts citizens and weakens the rule of law… As mycolleague Charlie Nesson told a class at Stanford, each year law schools admit thousands of students who have illegally downloaded music, illegally consumed alcohol and sometimes drugs, illegally worked without paying taxes, illegally driven cars…everywhere in America today[, you] can’t live [your] lives both normally and legally, since “normally” entails a certain degree of illegality.”

  Students have been socialized to a system of bad laws that are easy to break—so they break them. Then, other institutions, such as universities, are brought in to serve as enforcers and pressure is placed on them in order to lever the lawless into the lawful. This pressure-group tactic does not address any of the underlying concerns about the appropriateness of the law, but only serves to increase the punishment dramatically by radically expanding its scope: According to this proposed legislation, if colleges do not provide alternatives to file-sharing, they face the possibility of losing ALL financial aid to their students—even those who don’t even own a computer. Draco (of “draconian” fame) would be proud.

  Pressure groups like the RIAA are doing legal violence to their customers, and when that doesn’t work, they do legal violence to the institutions they belong to (and everyone else who belongs to them). Imagine that you are one of 50,000 undergraduate students at UT-Austin. You are a dance major and don’t even own a computer. You rely entirely on financial aid—and face the prospect of not being able to go to school because your school did not sign up for an “alternative” legal file-sharing protocol. Is this justice?

  This is the kind of poor policy that leads to rampant illegal behavior. How can we respect the law, when the law is not respectable?

• 7    lvmesa // Nov 13, 2007 at 5:36 pm

  I was struck by the simplicity of the Intel program for information collaboration described in the Wikinomics article. The funding and incentive model for both major corporations and the schools and institutes they work with seems to make a lot of sense, at least looking at it from an economical perspective.

  At the same time, however, I see lots of issues with the idea of corporate sponsorship in the academic setting. Yes, at Stanford we have NIke supporting our sports teams and Pepsi in our cafeterias, but that type of sponsorship doesn’t necessarily dictate the way an academic department or discipline structures its resources or plans its future. The sponsorship of academics leads universities, which are supposed to be neutral and educational, towards the direction of their benefactor. This bias, whether it comes in the programs the school pursues, the machinery they buy, or the resources they use fundamentally rejects the University’s purpose as a place of biased learning.

  How can a school or set or researchers truly look for the best answer or for unbiased information when they have to consider the good of their sponsor for the continuation of the research program? This model is a good first step, but there are too many capitalistic interests at stake for me to be fully enthused about such an option. Knowledge is sacred and the process of finding that knowledge within a learning institution should not be able to be bought.

  The aforementioned issue is symptomatic of the fact that the pharmaceutical industry’s capitalistic model of business is very flawed. The gross over investments by pharmaceuticals on marketing, instead of R&D and in the wealthy as opposed to the poor is very demonstrative of a problem that cannot be solved by trying to makes small changes to the way we share information, or in the way we look for medical solutions. At the end of the day, the fact that the market is geared towards maximizing profit is what is causing the problems within the pharmaceutical industry.

  Perhaps the only way we can solve the unequal distribution of knowledge, the ridiculously high prices and the unequal distribution of resources to problems is by deprivatizing the industry.

  Some would argue that doing so would take away the industry’s incentive to help people and to make scientific discoveries. Economically speaking, I agree–deprivatizing would definitely make a big impact on the bottom line. But I don’t think it would stop people from trying to make discoveries. If anything, it would encourage those people that are in the industry for the right reasons, ie to make the discoveries for the right reasons.

  I don’t think that a person’s health or any part of the health industry should be left in the hands of capitalism. As we are seeing in this country, capitalism destroys virtue of the health industry, leaving the most vulnerable at stake. Health and maintaining health should be a human right that no corporation should have the ability to buy and sell.

• 8    benkr // Nov 13, 2007 at 5:58 pm

  What most surprised me about Steal This Idea was the discussion of patents awarded on human genes. Patents, any dictionary definition will tell you, are meant to protect one’s “invention.” The definition of “invent,” in turn, implies that what one has created is not preexisting. This is the difference between an invention and a discovery — an invention creates something new, while a discovery brings something preexisting to human consciousness. Drug companies cannot, by any stretch of the imagination, be said to have “invented” a certain gene, and therefore cannot make any logical claim of ownership over it. This use of law is unprecedented.

  With other information exclusivity agreements, the information in question has been newly created — not just outside the realm of human consciousness, but completely nonexistent. When an author copyrights a book, the information therein is either new or unprotected. We cannot infringe upon the copyright of Harry Potter by selling a knockoff story using the same characters and universe because, before J. K. Rowling put pen to paper, no such world or people “existed” in any sense. However, if an anthropologist does a survey of a certain group of people, we can freely use the numbers she comes up with — as long as we cite the source — because she has only discovered a preexisting fact about the world. The only new thing she has created herself is the framework of presenting that fact — ie, her language — and for that reason we find ourselves unable to sell her same research verbatim.

  Why, then, should we use a different paradigm for genes? Page 148 notes the drug companies’ bid for control over “any computer-readable medium having recorded thereon the nucleotide sequence,” which is akin to a census-taker claiming ownership of all encyclopedias printing the population of Quebec. And most disgracefully, the lawsuits filed which assert that the discoverer of a gene deserves royalties from any drug acting upon that gene is analogous to me discovering a new variety of precious gem, and then demanding royalties from anyone who mines it on his property. That is the landowner’s land, and the gem was already there; the discoverer has no rightful claim over it. Likewise, the genes already exist in our bodies, and it is intuitive that we have the right to impact them however we wish.

• 9    clizzin // Nov 13, 2007 at 6:01 pm

  A theme that seems to be common to both the Perelman reading and the Lessig reading is the idea that litigation is the primary cost of maintaining intellectual property rights for corporations, whether the content those corporations produce is entertainment or medical drugs. Lessig tends to point out examples where litigation is used as a political move by existing corporations to threaten innovators and shut out new competitors and entrants to the market, while Perelman focuses on how litigation creates inefficiencies by introducing unnecessary costs for information production and application to the point of bankrupting companies that would otherwise have produced socially beneficial goods. Both provide an interesting alternative take on the role of law in the information economy (compared to Benkler’s views) because they emphasize the effects of the ways in which agents within the information economy use laws for their own purposes, as opposed to Benkler’s focus on law’s role in creating a certain institutional environment for information production and exchange.

  This different focus is interesting because it takes into account the fact that while laws do play an institutional and environmental role, the manipulation and navigation of law is equally important when agents play out their interests in the information economy. Lessig’s repeated emphasis on the fact that being a creator “requires a call to your lawyer” (192) notes that the aspects of law that protect creation and innovation are useless without payment to third parties who can formally represent your arguments against a corporation. This implies that law and policy formulation are more difficult than they would initially seem under Benkler’s analysis. For example, it seems at least somewhat reasonable that creators of a work or good receive some payment for the investment they make to produce it. However, such a policy becomes problematic when multiple biotechnology firms claim royalties from one another because of the work each did to contribute to the discovery of a gene or development of a drug and the litigation fees become so high that none of them can continue to pursue the good that each intended to develop. It especially seems that outdated interpretations of law being misapplied to new fields of science and technology are the primary origin of such manipulations of the law. Commentators and policymakers in the field of intellectual property should therefore be sure to pay much more attention to the economic power and political clout of parties in the information economy when making law and deciding particular cases because such factors can heavily affect how such laws are applied in disputes in the economy.

You must log in to post a comment.