The Informationist, a blog written by Bruce Abramson

So...Should we Have Software Patents?

The WSJ decided to weigh in on this question yesterday, by presenting something of a debate.  Yet this article, like most such discussions, misses the basic point.

Are exclusive rights, of the sort that define our IP systems, potentially useful in motivating innovative software development?  Absolutely.

Can the bundle of rights that we use successfully to motivate innovation in pharmaceuticals similarly motivate innovation in software?  Not a chance in hell.

By bifurcating all IP into the buckets of patent and copyright, we shoehorn innovations where they have no right being.  Our patent system offers a uniform set of rights to innovators in all industries, independent of: up-front capital needs; likelihood of success; typical time from investment to return; ability to divert work if you are not first past the post; and relationship between innovation and product.  While judges may vary their ruling by industry, they have no statutory right to do so--it represents clear activism from the bench.  And to make matters worse, we imposed this uniformity on patent systems around the world via international treaty (TRIPS).

The debate over software patents will continue until we do the sensible thing: craft a set of rights tailored to the needs and incentives of software innovators.

I wrote about one such system more than a decade ago.  I was not the first.  I was not the last.

And I am not holding my breath.

 

The Right To Know

The California Legislature shot down a "Right to Know" law that set Silicon Valley against Consumer Advocates.  Basic question: Does a consumer have the right to demand any report that an on-line data aggregator compiles and sells about him?  

The argument is straightforward.  

The "pro" side believes that I have a right to know what others know--or think they know--about me.

The "con" side notes that such a requirement would be cumbersome, would complicate business, and would likely lead to further regulation and litigation.

This issue will not fade soon for a simple reason: They are both right.

A Bit More on Bitcoin

Bitcoin, the digital currency, continues to generate interest.  Today's WSJ weekly interview with Gavin Andresen, Bitcoin's lead software developer, provides a teriffic quick summary for those not yet up to speed.

But it also provides all of the information necessary to appreciate why the grand claims that some make for its future are pipe dreams. 

The Promise and the Threat

America is a country of great promise and great strength.

That strength rests upon an idea most radical.  From its inception, America valued individual dignity and respected individual freedom.  We are a nation born without a king, without nobility, without a priesthood, without a plan.  We grew as an experiment, by expression and reflecting the desires of our citizenry rather than by fiat of some elite.  From millions of individual small decision grew a society of unrivaled complexity, opportunity, mobility, and strength.

America will never fall to a military coup, nor will we fall to a foreign invader.  But that does not mean that we will stand forever.  The fall of America, should it occur, will unfold slowly and stealthily.  We will fall only to a leader of our own choosing, a great American who perverts our institutions and our ideals into unrecognizable form, a voice that inspires us to corrupt our society in the name of our loftiest ideals.  America's fall from grace will occur when we follow such a leader. When that day arrives: 

We will trap people in poverty in the name of compassion;

We will restrict expression the name of sensitivity;

We will denigrate faith in the name of humanity;

We will see earners as greedy and takers as worthy in the name of equity;

We will discriminate in the name of ending discrimination;

We will abandon our allies to placate our foes in the name of peace;

We will foment social tension in the name of protecting citizens from each other;

We will elevate paternalism over our own instincts in the name of progress;

We will feel entitled to things that others must provide in the name of justice;

In short, we will embrace slavery only when it comes wrapped in the language of freedom.  And it will occur precisely because a majority of us fail to see it happening until it is too late, welcoming the subtle redefinitions as expressions of our strength.          

Therein lies the greatest threat to America.

The hope lies with those dedicated to the grand American experiment, those who remain capable of seeing light even as a majority deny the darkness slowly enveloping us.

A Guide for the Perplexed Obama Voter

It seems that the first paychecks of 2013 have started to make their way into the hands of America’s workers.  If my Facebook friends are any indication, the numbers on those checks have surprised many of the recipients.  Of course, those of us who voted for Romney—or at the very least, against Obama—understand exactly what happened: We elected a guy who wanted taxes to increase, and taxes increased.  We get it.   We’re not happy about it, but we get it.  A fair number of Obama voters, on the other hand, seem a bit fuzzy on the relationship between the election’s outcome and their diminished paychecks.  So here, as a public service, is a guide for the perplexed Obama voter.

Never a Dualist: Beyond Bush and Obama

Many of my friends have become dualists, dividing the world into "Bush" and "Obama," where criticism of one necessarily equates to support for the other.  This little blog post is a reminder that some of us reject such simple-minded thinking.

I believe--and I have stated often--that the U.S is suffering from twelve years of poor leadership.  Yes, we have gotten some things right during that period, but we have adopted poor policies far more often than good ones.  We are hurting for it; the world is hurting for it.

The 2001 and 2003 tax bills, set to expire at the end of this month following several extensions, are a case in point.  I opposed these bills because they increased the complexity and distortion in our tax system.  At the time they passed, I believe that real reform was possible, and that they represented a squandered opportunity.  I believed that they would make some things better, other things worse, and were (at best) weakly responsive to the particular economic needs of the time.  They were not, in any meaningful sense, free market reforms.  

I feel precisely the same way about allowing them to expire.  For better or for worse, they became part of our tax code.  They changed the way people think and behave.  We built other things upon them.  If they are allowed to expire, our tax code will become increasingly complex and distorted.  Expiration is (at best) weakly responsive the particular economic needs of our time.  Above all, simple expiration or simple extension would represent a squandered opportunity for real reform.

So there you have it.  The 2001 and 2003 tax bills were the wrong bills for 2001 and 2003, respectively; their expiration is wrong for 2012.

I apologize to my dualist friends (mostly but not entirely on the left) who find this position confusing.

Republicans on Copyright. Or at least, Some Republicans on Copyright.

An interesting story pulled together a couple of my different worlds last week:  The Republican Study Committee (RSC) posted an analysis of copyright law. 

My Comments on Trade in the Los Angeles Times

Hard to believe that I forgot to link to the article, but it came out November 7 and I was a bit preoccupied.

The Problem with the Polls

Though I am writing this essay as Americans cast their votes, it is not a partisan piece and I am not writing as a partisan.  I am writing as a statistical scientist, someone who has spent nearly three decades considering issues related to measurement and modeling.  From this vantage point, I issued my only prediction of this election cycle: The polls are wrong.  All of them.  By enough to ensure that future textbooks will contain entire chapters assessing the lessons of 2012.  This essay expands upon that prediction.

My prediction arises from a few fundamental beliefs and observations: 

For the Sake of the Less Fortunate, Vote to End Progressive Governance

Progressive governance is really not bad for lawyers.  An economy in which some people write regulations so that others can fight about their meaning while seeking loopholes and favors generates plenty of work for folks in my line of business.  It's the white collar equivalent of an economy digging and filling holes--great for ditch diggers, bad for society.

I have many friends who are not so fortunate.  Some of them are techies, whose employment prospects rise and fall with economic growth.  Many others work in the numerous less glamorous sectors of our economy.  Some of them--particularly the younger set--still find themselves wondering how they will fund next month's rent.  They are the people who have--and who will continue--to suffer the most in Obama's progressive economy.

Periodically, I look at the folks I know facing hard times, and I wonder what I can do to help them.  Over the years, I have tried numerous things, mostly personalized.  A few have succeeded, and provided genuine assistance.  Most have been of minimal consequence.  I often feel that there should have been more that I could do.    

Tomorrow's Presidential election provides an uncharacteristically clear choice, a genuine opportunity to help those who are not quite as fortunate as I am, those whose skills require economic growth and healthy demand, those who cannot coast on the mindless excesses of government bureaucracy.  Economic growth will make my work more interesting in and rewarding, but it is not strictcly necessary to enable my livelihood.  For many of my friends, a slow-growth bureaucratic economy will provide a guarantee of continued struggle.

From tomorrow forward, I will know that whatever else I may do, or may fail to do, when anyone asks me what I have done to help those less fortunate than myself, I will know that I have at least one easy answer: "I voted to end progressive governance in America."

I urge those of my friends who, like me, belong to the country's educated professional elite to join me in this gift to our friends.

And I urge those of my friends who do not to vote their own interests.

If you care about the future and care about your friends, vote for Mitt Romney.