A Modest Proposal: "How to Fix Capitalism"

"How to Fix Capitalism" is an insanely ambitious post that ranges over, well, just about everything concerned with business and all it touches. The following proposals give some hint of its deep wisdom:

# Abolish patents. They have not been proven to speed progress: the evidence seems to be to the contrary. They definitely increase costs, are an inefficient way of funding R & D and allow oligopolists to block competition.

# Reduce the copyright term to the optimal length suggested by research of about 15 years. It ought to be obvious that works produced in the reign of Queen Victoria should not be in copyright in the 21st century.

# Exclude works distributed with DRM from copyright to ensure that copyright works do fall into the public domain when the copyright expires.

# Reduce the copyright term on computer software to two years, and make copyright contingent on disclosing source code (so others can alter the software when it comes out of copyright).

This section also warmed the cockles of my collaborative heart:

by telling people that they are expected to be selfish, they become more selfish. Economics students become more selfish because they are repeatedly taught to expect that people are rational and selfish: the association between the two can only strengthen the effect.

Society is permeated, especially in business, politics and economics, with the idea that is people pursue their own interests, this will automatically lead to the best outcome, and that, therefore, people should be selfish. This cannot be fixed by endless incentives to align interests: life and business is too complex for that to work. A free market is not a substitute for integrity.

Just share it...

Follow me @glynmoody on Twitter or identi.ca.

Western Hypocrisy on Intellectual Monopolies

There is currently a huge bun-fight going on at the WHO over who has the "rights" to "own" key genomic information about pandemic influenza viruses. This is tantamount to arguing over who has the rights to hire out deckchairs on the Titanic as it goes down: the idea that intellectual monopolies have any meaning in a world threatened by hundreds of millions of deaths from a new pandemic strain is beyond obscene.

What makes this spectacle particularly disgusting is the hypocrisy of the West: not content with trying to patent the unpatentable, it wants the developing countries to give up *their* "rights" so that the West's industries can maximise their profit (failing to notice that it is hard to spend all this luvverly profit when you and/or your bankers are dead). Here are some of the sordid details:

Several delegates participating in last week's Intergovernmental Meeting on Pandemic Influenza Preparedness (IGM) (under the World Health Organisation) from countries providing influenza viruses to laboratories and manufacturers in developed countries, privately mentioned that the positions taken by developed countries in particular by the US, Japan and the EU on issues such as intellectual property rights and benefit sharing reveals the "double standards" of those countries.

On the one hand, the IGM saw the US, Japan and the EU pushing hard for relinquishment of sovereign rights, an interpretation of the International Health Regulations that obligates the sharing of viruses, text that requires countries to share as "all, as feasible, cases of H5N1 and other influenza viruses with human pandemic potential" with their laboratories in the name of global public health and pandemic preparedness.

However, on the other hand, they appear unwilling to commit in particular their manufacturers and researchers that receive biological materials to any concrete benefit sharing scheme, or to address IP issues in a manner that benefits developing countries' public health and pandemic preparedness. Much of the framework's text that deals with benefit sharing continues to remain in brackets, denoting there is no agreement.

Whenever reference to "manufacturers" and the need to have a better understanding of their roles and responsibilities was made by developing countries at the meeting, the issue was quickly passed over by the Chair of the IGM, Jane Halton from Australia. And countries such as Japan and the US insisted that the framework being developed should not dictate what the manufacturers or the researchers can do with the biological materials, or their roles and responsibilities.

You would have thought that against the background of a financial system brought to its knees by blind greed, at least here at the World *Health* Organisation there would be a more, er, healthy and mature attitude to saving the world from a potentially even greater disaster. Apparently not....

Why Free Software is a Con-Trick

A number of sites have noted this interesting study of a particular kind of con-trick, known as "The pigeon drop". What really caught my attention was the following:

The key to a con is not that you trust the conman, but that he shows he trusts you. Conmen ply their trade by appearing fragile or needing help, by seeming vulnerable. Because of THOMAS, the human brain makes us feel good when we help others--this is the basis for attachment to family and friends and cooperation with strangers. "I need your help" is a potent stimulus for action.

Now, how does free software generally operate? It begins with a call for *help* - which means that it elicits the same deep human response as the con-trick described in the original post.

Here are two classics of the free software pigeon-drop con-trick genre, one from RMS:

Starting this Thanksgiving I am going to write a complete Unix-compatible software system called GNU (for Gnu's Not Unix), and give it away free(1) to everyone who can use it. Contributions of time, money, programs and equipment are greatly needed.

The other from Linus:

Hello everybody out there using minix -

I'm doing a (free) operating system (just a hobby, won't be big and professional like gnu) for 386(486) AT clones. This has been brewing since april, and is starting to get ready. I'd like any feedback on things people like/dislike in minix, as my OS resembles it somewhat (same physical layout of the file-system (due to practical reasons) among other things).

This is why proprietary software will never be able to beat free software: because the latter always brings with it an implicit cry for help, rather than simply offering us a cold and clinical business deal, it triggers the release of a powerful neurochemical that actually makes us feel good when we respond to that appeal. It turns out that it's altruism, not greed, that is good.

Total's Total Shame

In the present climate, with growing distrust and disgust at the antics of greedy, global mega-corporations, I don't think this kind of scandal is going to go down too well:

Total, one of the world’s largest oil companies, has been accused of hiding behind a “completely ludicrous” legal argument to avoid responsibility for Britain’s biggest peacetime explosion.

...


Earlier this year, Total admitted in preliminary hearings that the blast was the result of negligence by the supervisor on duty at the time. However, it has only accepted liability for properties within 451 metres of the blast on the grounds that damage to property beyond that could not have been predicted.

Claimants whose properties lay further than 451 metres from the site of the explosion will have to prove that damage to their properties was foreseeable. That includes more than 170 local residents and small businesses.

Mr Gaisman said that Total's argument was legally unprecedented and based on flawed calculations. “Even a child” could have guessed that an explosion of such magnitude would cause damage to properties within several kilometres of the plant, he said.

Now, about that windfall tax....

Banking on Imaginary Assets

Haven't banks learned *anything*?

In 2006, the Bank of Communications Beijing Branch began offering loans to Chinese SMEs secured against IP assets. Since then 37 companies have borrowed a total of over 400 million yuan (around $58.5 million) in 44 separate deals. And not one has defaulted.

Yet.

When banks start lending money against IP assets, it has to be a pretty positive sign. I know that banks have a pretty poor reputation these days, but they are not going to make cash available to companies if they do not think that they have a very good chance of getting it back; or, if they do not, that they can recover the money in other ways.

Er, because banks never make mistakes, and are never motivated by blind greed? "A pretty positive sign"? I don't think so....

Constant Dripping Wears Away the Stone

Although apparently a small matter, I think this story about restaurants refusing to provide tap water for free could have quite wide ramifications.

At one level, it's about restaurateurs being reasonable: if I spend tens of pounds on their food, it's not too much to ask for some water to go with it, given that it costs them fractions of a penny to provide it. If they refuse, it's sheer, bloody-minded greediness - and a good reason (a) never to eat there again and (b) to name and shame them so that others can do the same.

Moreover, as ever, this is not a question of a threat, but of an opportunity for restaurants, which can differentiate themselves through the quality of the tap water they offer - filtered, presented with ice, lemons whatever. Again, the costs of doing so are minimal, but the potential gains in terms of improved customer satisfation great.

But obviously, there's a much bigger issue here too:

Earlier this year, environment minister Phil Woolas condemned the bottled water industry as "morally unacceptable". Mineral water suppliers on average use two litres of water for every litre put into a bottle. Much is transported from overseas, from as far away as New Zealand and Fiji. Four out of five bottles are plastic, most of which end up in landfill despite recycling initiatives, where it can take four centuries to decompose.

Consumer campaigners Which? estimate that the number of plastic bottles sent to landfill each year would fill Wembley Stadium twice over. Which? describes bottled mineral water as an unnecessary drink that costs us £1.68bn a year. The good news is that sales fell by 9% last year, and in the credit crunch sales are expected to fall further. "Our reasons for buying bottled water are drying up," according to Which?

If we all start asking for tap water in restaurants - as I've recently started doing - we will be able to make a direct, if small contribution to reducing the ridiculous environmental costs of bottled water, perhaps start sensitising retaurateurs to the implications of how they choose to run their businesses and, more profoundly, change attitudes to the unthinking privatisation of vital commons like water.

Is Amazon Getting Greedy?

I'm a big fan of Amazon - actually, make that a big addict. But when it starts throwing its weight around, I can't help thinking it is starting to act like a certain other large company that wants it all:

Reports have been trickling in from the POD underground that Amazon/BookSurge representatives have been approaching some Lightning Source customers, first by email introduction and then by phone (nobody at BookSurge seems to want to put anything in writing). When Lightning Source customers speak with the BookSurge representative, the reports say, they are basically told they can either have BookSurge start printing their books or the "buy" button on their Amazon.com book pages will be "turned off."

"POD" is Print on Demand, an exciting and increasingly popular way to publish books, especially those with small runs (most of them); Lightning Source is a big POD publisher, while BookSurge is Amazon's rival version.

Come on, Amazon, you don't need to do this: you can become the central point where people buy books, without insisting you print the bloody things too....

The Smiley's Sad Tale

The smiley is a defining icon of the online generation. But as this article points out, it is also likely to go down as yet another enclosure of the virtual commons, a victim of insensate corporate greed, as companies battle it out for the "right" to claim this symbol as their "own".

A Smidgeon Too Open, Perhaps

I'm all in favour of openness, but maybe this is taking things a little too far....

More seriously, it does show the tension between openness and privacy - and how a balance needs to be struck in some cases. Here, though, there seems to be no possible justification for exposing mobile 'phone users in this way - sorry, "greed is good" doesn't cut it.