Re: Tim's paradigm shift
"Stephen J. Turnbull" <[email protected]> Sat, 10 Jul 2004 15:38:41 +0900
| Newsgroups | gmane.comp.misc.free-software-business |
|---|---|
| Organization | The XEmacs Project |
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
>>>>> "Tim" == Tim O'Reilly <[email protected]> writes: Tim> The obstacle raised by a big collaborative database is Tim> operational rather than intrinsic, and P2P can address some Tim> of the operational issues more easily than a centralized db. Tim> But those obstacles can still be significant. The question I Tim> have to ask, though, from a business point of view, is Tim> whether this is really BAD. It is. Suppose you've got a business going, and you're buying from this monopolist. Then somebody comes up with a killer app that doesn't compete with yours for customers, but drives up the price of the input service. That kind of risk is not going to go away, and we (ie, the economic regulators) don't really have a good way to deal with it. Tim> I continue to feel that the intensity of the feeling around Tim> the right to fork and the danger of lock in has been Tim> exacerbated beyond the natural level by the actions of a Tim> single monopolist. You're talking about the guy with the patent on the human genome, right? ;-) It's not just a single monopolist. The problem is that this is _strategic_ uncertainty, not _risk_. You're at the monopolist's mercy, and it's not something where you can buy insurance, or keep a reserve so you can plant again next year if a tornado destroys your fields this year. The only way you can turn it back into a probabilistic issue is by getting rid of the monopoly. Tim> This isn't all bad, because it results in people figuring out Tim> how to cooperate rather than trying to compete on every Tim> front. You know what Adam Smith said about businessmen cooperating. Really, when you get down to it, "open source" is just about as far as we (the consumers) want businesses to go in cooperating with each other. Most other competition is about increasing the quantity available to customers, and therefore is generally good (although this drives down price, making it harder to make a profit). So in this case I'd have to disagree. Data is just as nonrival as code, and we'd really like those databases to be distributed with non-exclusive licenses. Please note---I don't really disagree with your conclusions. I don't see an alternative to things going this way for while. However, I don't think data, even if incarcerated behind website firewalls, is inherently all that different from code. So many of the same techniques and arguments that we have successfully used to liberate a lot of software should be adaptable to liberating databases as well. -- Institute of Policy and Planning Sciences http://turnbull.sk.tsukuba.ac.jp University of Tsukuba Tennodai 1-1-1 Tsukuba 305-8573 JAPAN Ask not how you can "do" free software business; ask what your business can "do for" free software.