Archive of UserLand's first discussion group, started October 5, 1998.

Re: mobility (Anti-Microsoft sentiment)

Author:David McCusker
Posted:9/20/2000; 4:12:17 PM
Topic:Debunking the OSS Bazaar?
Msg #:21556 (In response to 21543)
Prev/Next:21555 / 21557

Josh Allen: Well, I guess that is what I meant about being twitchy.

Twitchy? Is it my mouse whiskers again?

Josh Allen: As I have tried to stress a million times on this thread, companies are merely the skins which individuals wear while collectively achieving a goal.

A couple times anyway. If I don't respond to a point, I neither agree nor disagree as far as others can tell. That's a good state for me sometimes. Otherwise I end up in the business of playing pundit with thumbs up or down on everything, and idle talk gives me work to do. :-)

Okay, I take this as a poll for my reaction. Are companies just the sum of the individuals? No, this is patently false. Social groups have information systems that distinguish a group's operational character above and beyond the members.

Why are we talking about this? Of course I know why. It pertains to whether one should ever have feelings at all about companies, since if they are simply individuals in bulk, one would treat them that way. Also, lack of any company identity would relieve a company of responsibility. But the information patterns are answerable to criticism.

Josh Allen: Now, you introduce "forces to improve social mobility" as somehow disproving my point.

I got lost completely. What point? What's to disprove? If someone says this room contains no blueberries, and I hold one up for view, is that disproof? What if I just mean to say, here's a blueberry? Proof is a concept I never think about in conversations. I aim for understanding.

Josh Allen: Capital has always been the factor that snowballed the most in the past, and soon it will be information and other intellectual property ...

I intend to stop this in the case of intellectual property. So maybe it won't happen if other folks feel the same way. I'm aware many companies are jockeying to control the juice as other folks are jockeying to see it doesn't happen.

Josh Allen: ... and this applies to, and is happening with many companies that are not Microsoft. I believe intellectual property snowballs faster than capital, because one of the main reasons that capital snowballed in the first place (and especially today) is that the knowledge around snowballing capital is posessed by a few.

I asked myself what it means for IP to snowball and I got nonsense as an answer. Do you mean knowledge leads to more, or that owning IP leads to owning more IP? The first is not a problem (knowledge is good), and the second is going to be stopped by folks with beliefs like mine, in a painful fight.

Josh Allen: Now we see patent wars, business process patents, and so on -- I believe this is all symptomatic of the fact that IP is becoming the most important capital, and some people realize it.

IP is an advantage. Is that synonymous with capital? Doesn't that beg the question of how property is defined, and whether a particular thing can be considered property?

Josh Allen: I am simply trying to raise a warning flag that this situation is going to get a hell of alot worse unless we figure out some ways to deal with it.

The patent situation looks like it will get bad for everyone. Established companies have a lot to worry about. Patents are best for folks who have nothing else going for them, so grabbing a grub stake in the middle of the highway looks like an easy way to become a player with folks using the highway.

Josh Allen: Finally, I would implore you to stop looking for offense in what I post and maybe attempt to have a constructive discussion.

I can see no sign of offense in my post to which you respond. Earlier I was bothered by your loose paraphrasing of my ideas so they sounded like points familiar to you. And I was bothered by the fact we constantly discuss ourselves in this exchange. I hope paragraphs like this one won't be needed in the future. But just saying that might lead to more of the same.

Josh Allen: I wasn't trying to debate anything; and once again you seem very combative.

Point to something I said was combative. (Is this last sentence combative?) I like to be veering, but that doesn't mean I'm attacking. Lack of respect doesn't require being disrespectful. If I can't be unpredictable, I don't play. It's my number one rule, so folks can't rely on exactly how I'll respond. I should not be so important in what folks have to say.

Josh Allen: You mention reshuffling -- please share your ideas about how reshuffling can work in today's changing world? Or do you think that what we have is sufficient?

I could not find my use of 'reshuffle' in my post. I'm one of those folks who forgets words I say right after I say them. The ideas are more important to me than the words. I usually need to review the exact text to respond to earlier remarks.

There are responses to this message:

This page was archived on 6/13/2001; 4:56:47 PM.

© Copyright 1998-2001 UserLand Software, Inc.