RE: Action

Google has taken out a patent on their website. This means that Google has the right to a website consisting of a large search box with two buttons underneath and a few links around.
The original news is available on Gawker.com . And the news is perhaps saying too much when there is a 4 ½-year long dispute between lawyers who have been settled to Google's advantage.

IBM is currently seeking a patent for a remote control, twitter, blogger or update your status, for example. Facebook, when watching television (as above I saw it first on Slashdot ).

I honestly do not know what companies think of today. Imagine if the church took a patent on the cross and the King of Denmark had secured the right to the heart. Or more seriously, if Ford had filled a patent on the car where we had so been today?

"Ford patents motor vehicle on wheels"

I understand perfectly well that investing in research and development of products is expensive and that products must be protected by some form of copyright. And it must be with an off-taste in the mouth that Novo Nordisk require so much money for life-saving medicines that can save lives in the Third World. But without market mechanisms would medicine might never have been developed in the absence of business potential.

But in light of the quote about apples and ideas in the previous blog post , so it seems somewhat old fashioned to keep things to themselves. I did not tell about the two scenarios described in the report " Anarconomy ", though now they are interesting enough.

One way it can go, is that some will fight for stronger legislation. Microsoft seems to have an interest that there should be a global patent system (see article on CNET News .) It can be seen as a response to the global impact that we are under. However, from a power perspective, the proposal only serves to reinforce monopolies.
Pirate Party's success in Sweden and the growth in other European countries are actually helping to escalate the scenario of a conflict.

Another scenario that I want to be an advocate for is where Open Source is seen as a welcome competitor to the commercial. There will still be money to be made to issue guarantees (in that it works). It can Open Source do not really, because there really is no charge to point back to and possibly. sue. Income basis will still exist, but only manifest itself in other products, or instead of adventures. The commercial will have some opportunities to tailor solutions and focus on the special of the general solutions in a manner other than that which is free.

On the whole, I have difficulty understanding that people are so busy protecting their ideas from others to build upon them. If it's because I never have had an original idea, then it might be a position with a short time, thanks. In this case it's just idealist who speaks right now. And later it will be so cynic, whether I have become rich on the idea or not.

A good example: IBM provides software and other resources free for Linux partners. In exchange gets IBM knowledge and opportunity to use the Linux operating system on their machines, thus providing a computer at a competitive price.

"Anarconomy is equal to the new economic rules, the logic challenges not only the traditional monopolies. It challenges the company itself as value-added design, the hierarchical organizational structure and traditional pricing, what used to cost fortunes will be free in the future. "

The above quote to me is essential. This is Klaus Æ. Mogensen from the Institute for Futures Studies , which is behind the report "Anarconomy" (# 3, 2009). It is written legibly and is divided into four chapters. The first is introductory to the concept. The next is about two scenarios for how the future might look like in relation to copyright in ideas (intellectual property). There is a chapter about how anarconomy expressed just now. And finally there is a chapter on "Business models are anarconomy". The latter, which in this context is most interesting, though eg. Good morning Denmark on Monday spent more time on 3D printers. Perhaps because it is a tangible measure of how close this anarchic economy is upon us - and that it is not just about the Internet, but also can interfere with our physical life?

There is a huge growth in services on the Internet, where users themselves create and distribute (free) content. The reminder of our normal conceptions of particular ownership / copyright, which I will not go into detail in this context. But it has implications for how we can make money in the future. Technology's availability in the form of easy, inexpensive deployment bears a share of the credit / blame (if you will).

The report mentions a number of examples of how we can make money in this economy:

• Attention from users is at a premium. This applies to the advertising-financed portion, where impressions, pay per click or action that counts. It can be devices that were previously difficult to quantify. For example. individuals' attitudes and purchasing behavior, and especially opinion leaders are the most interesting.
• Voluntary donations are based on a desire among users to give the provider a coin to be present. The product is free, but users know that if they choose not to donate, then it may be that the product is not in the long run.
• Freemium is a term that covers the product for free. But if you want extra services, so it costs typically a small charge. The report also comes with an example from the physical world. Ryan Air offers flights from London to Barcelona for $ 20 even if it costs $ 70 to fly a passenger the distance. The rest comes by additional charges for luggage, onboard sales and advertising revenue.
• We can also choose to give the product away in order to sell another. This applies to the music business that puts their music recordings available for free, legal download, and then make money on merchandise, concerts and the like. It could also be that the man asked software available for free, but that it was the support and additional equipment costs.

Especially "Peer 2 Peer" gets much attention in the chapter, which in my eyes is also good reason. In many ways users of the anarchist units omvælter economy by helping in product development, marketing, quality assurance, production and delivery of the service. The recommendation is that it should be seen as an opportunity rather than a threat. Good enough is hard to accept that we should only serve 10% of what we earned before in relation to not earn anything. So there must surely be other solutions. Possibly. But the solution is not to continue as before.

It is not because the report is blind to the negative sides of the trends that it sets. There is a difference between commercial and free products, so that at no time claimed that one will replace the other. Other good things to say about the report, the fine motivation barometer and other "fact boxes" spread across the more than 48 pages. I think that something is being done out of that flesh out all ideas and analyzes / interpretations of real events and existing things.

Mogensen refers to George Bernard Shaw's sympathetic equation:

"If you have an apple and I have an apple and we exchange these apples then you and I still have one apple each. But if you have an idea and I have an idea and we exchange these ideas, we will both have two ideas. "

And that's when you master this mindset that it will be possible to capitalize on these ideas - if I need to get with my assessment. Individual examples of business models in a "free" world, which I have reproduced from the report above is already known today. The future lies in how we attack our own product and ensure its value: the user and the sponsor.

The report can be downloaded from the CIFS site .