|Authored by: dio gratia on Tuesday, November 27 2012 @ 04:05 PM EST|
|Personally I think the value of software 'IP' will have to shift. There's more|
need for coders than there available bodies, even staving off demand with open
source and massive walled garden singalongs.
We right software essentially the same way we did 60 years ago (although not
constrained to 80 column line records). The solution to not enough bodies is
more automation even in homogenization through walled gardens and capture of
available programming talent.
Automation brings the promise of re-use meaning non-original expression
ineligible for copyright and domain specific languages ala Charles Simonyi's
Intentional Programming or something even better bringing more idea-expression
merger to software work with concurrent loss of copyright eligibility.
Sure we'll see a push to license everything, which can essentially ignore
failings in copyright eligibility. Copyleft licenses fight that and once the
ubiquitous demand for software catches up to the idea we've been facing
artificial scarcity we'll see tools that enable those not previously employed as
programmers to create needed software. Simonyi talks about roles, specifically
separating out architecture which can be constrained by standardization.
Adopting the language of open standards means idea-expression merger when the
very language is also your programming language (and lacks originality).
The effect is to not allow anything essential to be bottled up behind licensing,
while sanding off the harsh corners of artificial scarcity (expense). While it
will also bring new obviousness to the table as we have language that embraces
skill in the art, software patents are the real threat. Copyright despite it's
120 year commercial life is a passing fad as a marketing distinction.
You could take out automation and address foreign competition. I used to be a
chip designer and have worked in various disciplines where China, India and
Indonesia now dominate. Someone found a way to make scarcity economics work
for competition by applying cheap labor.
It also explains why there are so many people interested in maintaining software
patents, without which they'd have no marketing distinctiveness to prop up
prices and suppress competition.
Patents disable competition and innovation at every turn, you could spend an
afternoon going through patent applications out of Intentional Programming.
Now the question is do artificial market barriers promote the sciences and arts
in the face of global markets where the issue is number of practitioners of the
arts? Homogeneity precludes technical creativity other than by centralized
means, the priests declaring the inundation.
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]