Thoughts on Copyright Law and Patents

“Since invention is almost never the sole work of a single inventor, however great a genius he may be, and since it is the product of the successive labors of innumerable men, working at various times and often toward various purposes, it is merely a figure of speech to attribute an invention to a single person: this is a convenient falsehood fostered by a spurious sense of patriotism and by the device of patent monopolies – a device that enables one man to claim special financial rewards for being the last link in the complicated social processes that produced the invention….This holds true for countries and generations as well: the joint stock of knowledge and technical skill transcends the boundaries of individual or national egos: and to forget that fact is not merely to enthrone superstition but to undermine the essential planetary basis of technology itself.”

Source: Technics and Civilization

Mobile Phones as Nerve System

From The Economist, a sort of altruistic, mobile Amazon Turk:

"Some computer scientists look forward to the day when mobile phones and sensors can provide a central nervous system for the entire planet. An abundance of sensors, they believe, will lead to two things. First, the amount of data will increase, allowing scientists to build more realistic models. Alessandro Vespignani of Indiana University compares the current state of affairs to weather forecasting a century ago, before satellites had provided meteorologists with the data to build and optimise mathematical models. When it comes to problems such as tracking and predicting the spread of diseases and other environmental hazards, he argues, scientists can never get enough data.

Second, once people are able to contribute data to research projects from their mobile phones, it could provide an ideal way to broaden public involvement in scientific activities. This would be the next logical step after the popularity of web-based participation in scientific research, from folding proteins to categorising photographs of galaxies. Eric Paulos, a computer scientist at Carnegie Mellon University in Pittsburgh, predicts the rise of “citizen scientists” able to measure and sample their surroundings wherever they go. When people can report mundane variables such as the level of traffic noise in their street or the degree of air pollution at the bus stop, he argues, their outlook on science changes. “People develop a relationship with and a sense of ownership over the data,” he says. He foresees amateur experts being driven by a new sense of volunteerism, the 21st-century equivalent of cleaning up the neighbourhood park."

Reminded me of this (GOOD article):

The Three Phases of Technology

Technology goes through three phases:

I Function – the invention of a new functionality previously unknown to the public.
II Feature – the addition of ancillary functions/features to the original, core function. 
III Experience – the orchestration of all functions into a fluid and emotionally-charged user experience.

So let’s follow the evolution of videogame consoles:

I: Company introduces the function of playing video games on your home TV.
II: Console makers add new features such as enhanced graphics, new controllers/interfaces (i.e. the NES Zapper) as well as functions such as playing DVDs, playing music, viewing pictures, downloading games and online play.
III: Microsoft introduces Natal and thereby rejiggers the user experience. No longer does a gamer interact with the game through a controller (even Wii does this). The gamer now interacts with the game as he would another person. The user experience changes from the “keyboard metaphor” to the “in-person metaphor.”

It works with CPG goods (a type of technology) too:

I: Introduction of washing machine soap.
II: The additions of scent, color protection, stain fighters, a bleaching agent, etc.
III: Method rejiggers the user experience from a product that I hide in a cabinet to a product that becomes an enhancing part of the décor of my home.

(Because invention is expensive, time consuming and hard AND because orchestrating the experience requires discipline, systemic thinking and tons of user information, most companies settle into and get stuck in the Features phase. Adding features (ie line extensions) is much easier and cheaper place to exist as a company. But stay there too long, and it'll mess up you up (ie Sony).)

You can even place occupations into these categories:

Phase I Function is where engineers live. They are always trying to make real the unreal – i.e. putting a man on the moon. They are most concerned about the product and what is happening inside of it.

Phase II Features is where corporate-side marketers live. They always want to add something to their product to differentiate it from a competitor’s. The belief: More features = better value proposition.

Phase III Experience is where designers live. Here, designers do two things. First, they help people deal with change – i.e. breakthrough, game-chancing functionality – by managing the experience they have it. Second, designers, because they have the ability to think systemically, orchestrate information and/or features for greater clarity. (This has been a core function of designers dating back to the Illuminators of Medieval book reproduction.) Designers are less concerned with ushering in a new reality (as they do not often have a commands of chemistry, physics, math, molecular biology, etc.) as they are spreading a new reality throughout the world (by elevating the experience people have with that new reality).

The Influence of Media on Time Perspectives

So I tend to define media as the things people think with. If a ‘thing’ is not in use, it is not a medium. For example, a book is only a book until I notice, open and/or use it to think. Until then, it is just an object in my environment.

There is an important implication to this: Thoughts need media.

Without media, I can’t think. Maybe that’s why people go insane when placed in sensory deprivation? With no media, cognitive function malfunctions.

If you change (or remove) my media, you change my thoughts. Hence, governments who want to control people, by means other than physical force, control the media. Harold Innes, in Empire and Communication, likewise argues that revolutions in communication media are followed by revolutions in culture and society.

I bring all this up because I think this presentation by psychologist Philip Zimbarto is highly interesting to anyone in media communications or development.



Zimbarto argues that our individual perspectives on time shape our lives. They influence every decision we make. Even our personal destinies.

Here’s a good summation of each time perspective (TP):

(Hank Hill in King of The Hill is a great example of a past-minded person. Ben Stiller in Along Came Polly is future-minded. Johnny Depp in Public Enemies is present-minded.)

But you should know we are not locked into our perspectives. Time perspectives are malleable. When we were children, Zimbarto says, we were present-minded. Some of us just learned to be future- or past-minded.

That said, I’d argue that most of the traditional mass media we’ve lived with has inclined us to act as future-minded individuals. For example: Until recently, TV and radio operated on schedules. If I wanted to watch MacGyver Monday’s at 8:00pm on ABC, I planned my day to ensure I’d be in front of a TV at 8pm. Sending letters in the mail required planning as well - around pickup and travel times. Phones, pre-messaging systems, caused us to plan parts of our days around when a person might call or be available for our call – for a date, job interview, repairman visit, etc (a.k.a. probability thinking).

But with the wide adoption of new media form such as IM, Twitter, iPods, websites, SMS, Kindle/ebooks, etc our minds are oriented more towards the present than the future. These technologies are about socializing (high affiliators), exploring information/links (Explore novelty), instantaneous communication, increased interactivity (improvisation) and constant activity (energy).

So if Zimbarto’s time research is accurate and Innes’ change via-communication theory is durable, we may expect a significant shift in our culture’s time perspective, and therefore value and behavior, in the coming years: from future-minded to present-minded.

Some quick example that comes to mind:

1. The perspectives of young employees. In the past, people planted roots at a single company and worked almost their entire adult lives there Today, more young people treat jobs as a “thing to do now” and have short tenures with each company. 
   
2. The desire to experiment more – in both the remix/cut-n-paste culture as well as entrepreneurial fields. (I bet drug use will go up in the coming decade, as well.)
   
3. Excessive and Rising credit card debt. 
   
4. Boom of social networks and need to always be connected.
   
5. Rise in poker popularity and online gambling.