Linux, and Light Bulbs

Reading the Balking article has reminded me of thoughts that I had earlier in the quarter when reading about the development of the Linux platform, regarding the speech genre of innovation .

How has the process of innovation evolved to this point?

Linux and similar open-source soft launch products are a bit of a conundrum. Why is it that people will contribute time-consuming and complex editions of software to a community, free of charge? This gratis innovation process certainly doesn't match up with traditional models of innovation.

I am reminded of light bulbs. The process of creating the prototypical incandescent light bulb occurred over the course of about one hundred years of discovery and experimentation by at least ten scientists. Thomas Edison did not sit up straight one day in a dark lab and "zap" there was the idea for the light bulb, he bought pre-existing patents from Henry Woodward and a colleague Mathew Evans and created a marketable product.

In response to curiosity about open-source contributors, or "unpaid coders," I think it would be enlightening to further explore the process of this innovation that will become increasingly critical to free information/software/technology access. (I.e. developing countries thriving on Linux.)

How does innovation really happen? When is innovation most valuable to society - when it is released at a perfect stage of completion, or when it is released in stages? Are decentralized models of creation more creative than centralized innovation models? The traditional patent system has created a cultural norm of "stealth mode" operation among nascent firms - new science, profitable science, is bragged about publicly only after it is patented. Until then, patent lawyers are the few who hear the most unique details. How can this traditional innovation community co-exist with such seemingly altruistic models as open-source software?

What is this "free" product? Additionally, are Linux, OurTunes, Flickr, Wordpress, and this basket of free goods more influential to modern culture than packaged masterpieces like the Office Suite? It's hard to measure. What types of innovation are culturally valuable, what types are really just commercially valuable, and does a government patenting system really allow for a useful combination of the two models?

Are we experiencing an economic trend toward a decentralized model of innovation- innovation from many, all of whom are eager to share and push innovation faster into a whirlwind of creative productivity? Or is this not actually the predominant culture? It seems that this is the predominant creative culture in development, but a predominant business culture still thrives on the "It's my idea, you can hear about it after I have funding and a patent" philosophy.   

Ideas have traditionally been bought, and then celebrated. But it is increasingly the case that ideas are celebrated and tested in beta before they are launched in full profit-making form (e.g. Gmail). Now, with a proliferation of free ideas and tools in the marketplace, who fills which niche? Buying ideas is no longer always so expensive, in fact it is often free, so many people can afford to innovate and affect enormous audiences (e.g. Linux).

So where does Linux come from? A marketplace need for efficacy and flexibility in software production, a devotion of the Linux community to their products, a simple distribution system, to name a few. If bug-free software can be produced in an open-source community, what should larger firms focus on? Whose goals and ethics do we want behind inventing software of the future?

Comments

[Shane]

Am I alone in feeling that this reading easily doubled the value of this class? Rarely do I save articles I read in class, even rarer are the times I annotate what I read. Today, I did both Don't get me wrong Prof Noveck, I love the blog, the interaction and lessons in class, and a lot of what we read up to this point, but this one just blew me a way. I've never seen such sweeping, cogent reading in poli sci, comm,...hell, ever. I am in a state of value shock as I type.
All my readings of the internet up to this point have been lacking. This is absolutely required reading for any serious tech lawyer, policy-maker, entrepreneur, journalist, future politician and connected citizen planning on being culturally relevant in the next thirty years. Stunning stuff.
Where does this go from here? Somehow translating that 55 page, small-type "thing" into a movement and mentality is the goal. I'm going to really knuckle-down and figure out how best to convey this man's message to a large, short-attention-spanned audience. Two years ago, the TED prize went to a doctor who wanted to make medical contracts for all procedures more understandable on any level. He wanted to achieve understanding at all levels of the socioeconomic spectrum through any means necessary. I feel a similar urge with Balkin's material.
I initially wanted to share this on facebook and digg right away, but I knew no one would read the whole thing (heck I almost didn't myself). Then I thought, maybe bulleted points would do the trick, but surely it would lack the depth and richness of Balkin. Perhaps a movie? Graphic Article? Five Part Blog Series? Podcast read by Bill Clinton?
My ideal goal is to get a young politician to swallow whole the views of this paper. Just wholesale appropriation of Balkin into their views and platform. It would make for tremendously compelling politics, I think.
Bottom line, I'm on it.
I see why Prof Noveck saved it for the end.

[tercüme]

I initially wanted to share this on facebook and digg right away, but I knew no one would read the whole thing (heck I almost didn't myself).