(The old) Flashing Neurons!!!

High-tech swimming suits and trading systems are primarily about distribution not efficiency. A small increase in speed over one’s rivals has a large effect on who wins the race but no effect on whether the race is won and only a small effect on how quickly the race is won. We get too much investment in innovations with big influences on distribution and small (or even negative) improvements in efficiency and not enough investment in innovations that improve efficiency without much influencing distribution (i.e. innovations in goods with big positive externalities).

The conventional rationale for copyright of written works, that copyright is needed to foster their creation, is seemingly of limited applicability to the academic domain. For in a world without copyright of academic writing, academics would still benefit from publishing in the major way that they do now, namely, from gaining scholarly esteem. Yet publishers would presumably have to impose fees on authors, because publishers would not be able to profit from reader charges. If these publication fees would be borne by academics, their incentives to publish would be reduced. But if the publication fees would usually be paid by universities or grantors, the motive of academics to publish would be unlikely to decrease (and could actually increase) – suggesting that ending academic copyright would be socially desirable in view of the broad benefits of a copyright-free world. If so, the demise of academic copyright should be achieved by a change in law, for the ‘open access’ movement that effectively seeks this objective without modification of the law faces fundamental difficulties.

As we consider how to explain the necessity of long-term investment in science and technology research and development, as we teach a new generation of students, and as we seek to broaden the base of participation in computing, it behooves us to remember the small child in each of us, the one who watched in open mouthed wonder, who felt the chill run down their spine and sensed the passion of others who were committed to discovery. The funding, the projects, the teams, they are all just enablers. It’s the childlike sense of wonder that drives innovation. For me, that’s the lesson of July 20, 1969.