What if (as is likely) I were to get together a bunch of people to develop a (web-based) service that depends vitally for its success on being a monopoly? That service being in the service of the commons… If there is no protection at all, it’s not just that the ideas could be lifted and pressed into service for commercial gain, but that if other people decide to copy the service, it will inevitably diminish the value of each one, the point where none of them would succeed. Any smart capitalist could start up a rival service simply to disrupt the success of the original.

We read so often of the vital nature of protecting infant industries, for a while, from outside competition. Aren’t we going to recognise the reality of that? That new software-based business models are likely to start off fragile?

What do people think of the idea of a time-limited IPR restriction? Give the service a protected slot, but everyone signs up right at the outset to the code being freed and opened at a fixed date in the future. That would ensure that there is no lasting value for anyone wanting to extract rent. I’m interested in any evidence that this might work, or not.

Actually, in cases like the one I envisage (not necessarily the one in the article), it is not the software itself, but the database, that is vital. Once the database has grown to an established monopoly, the code becomes irrelevant, and could eventually be reverse-engineered in any case. Protecting the code is simply one of the few tactics to delay interference by sabotage.

If I’m mistaken on this, I would really like to know how one can more reliably set up such a database driven, natural monopoly, web-based service for the ultimate good of p2p life, and avoid sabotage by vested interests who would like all such services to fail (in order to preserve the stranglehold of capital on our lives).

Thanks,

Simon

1. Code is not an asset, it is a liability, like inventory in a manufacturing company. You need to maintain it. It will drive you nuts.
2. I think ecosystems will rule in software. If you require membership in your cooperative to share your code, you limit your ecosystem.

I’m not sure exactly how ecosystem boundaries and inclusion will work themselves out in the next stage or two. They do need boundaries. But I suspect membership in a co-op is too limited.

1. Code is not an asset, it is a liability, like inventory in a manufacturing company. You need to maintain it. It will drive you nuts.
2. I think ecosystems will rule in software. If you require membership in your cooperative to share your code, you limit your ecosystem.

I’m not sure exactly how ecosystem boundaries and inclusion will work themselves out in the next stage or two. They do need boundaries. But I suspect membership in a co-op is too limited.