Parfois, il faut faire des choses...: January 2012

Saturday, January 28, 2012

Self, when did you join the social media revolution?

It was 6^th grade when they got me. AOL Instant Messenger was the platform, and “aren’t you on A.I.M.?” the tag line. My friends and classmates were the recruiters, and it didn’t take much for me to think of a new alias, claim it as my own, and join their ranks.

I remember the exhilaration of that first chat using my new “s.n.” (screen name). Now I could be like the others, at last privy to the nuances of “A.I.M.“ culture.

Even my early brush with chat (now integrated into nearly every major social media platform) illustrates some integral aspects of digital culture:

The seeds of identity authenticity and reputation were sown: a person’s screen name seemed to reveal more about them than their real name. We middle-schoolers were much more brave in our comments “on I.M.” than in person, and I remember exchanging with people who rarely if ever talked to me during the school day. I sometimes worried what my parents would think of my choice of friends if they saw their alter-egos spelled out on-screen.

Old ways were upset: It was not uncommon to call a friend and request that he or she “get on aim” so we could talk (incidentally, both activities tied up the phone line). Whether or not that girl im’ed you last night became as important as the note she might pass you during social studies the next day. We soon preferred the new medium of chat to the more traditional telephone conversation.

One way to consider the “social” in social media is that its technology spreads in response to social pressure. As having a screen name and chatting with friends online became the “in” thing to do, the technology was adopted by more and more people. Participation feeds the revolution.

When did you join the social media revolution?

Tuesday, January 17, 2012

Economics, Intellectual Property, and Why It's Hard to Say

Fellow classmate Brandon Robison recently extended an in-class discussion and presented an argument in favor of intellectual property law in his post: “Open Science and Why It’s a Bad Thing.” I chose to explore some of the major underpinnings of the intellectual property debate in a position paper for another class a few years ago, and thought I might as well dig up that paper that only I and my professor had ever read and contribute it to the discussion. I feel that there is a lot of useful background information on the issues, as well as some conclusions of merit.

The intellectual property debate is broad and encompasses several sub-debates that can be classified in various ways, including intellectual property type, government branch, and economic region. The over-arching question, however (also articulated in our class discussion), is this: does the patent system (and intellectual property in general) encourage innovation?

I hold that the ability of intellectual property protections such as patent systems to achieve this goal in today’s globalizing world is dependent on economic context.

But what does that mean, exactly? Basically, the effectiveness of intellectual property rights in encouraging innovation is contingent upon the ability of an economy to sufficiently reward and thus motivate said innovation. It is important to remember that the original goal of intellectual property rights was to encourage innovation, not necessarily to maximize the profitability of its application. As I state in my paper: “It is precisely because time and money are of such great focus that patents, and thus the intellectual property system, do accomplish their purpose of encouraging innovation in the United States. The economy is sufficiently built up so as to merit consideration of money, and by extension time, as the most universal form of incentive for innovation. The patent system secures for inventors the opportunity to receive compensation in return for their time and effort.”

But we aren’t cut-off from the rest of the world, and neither is the debate about intellectual property. There is a push for “global harmonization” of patent law, presumably to continue the encouragement of innovation on the global playing field. But again, we can’t think solely in terms of protecting profits: “In addition, the economic impact of intellectual property on both developed and underdeveloped countries is a major consideration in the global harmonization of patent law. Developed countries want to secure rights to their innovations worldwide, while underdeveloped countries would like to advance their ability to innovate through imitation.”

“Many countries simply do not have the economic strength to justify intellectual property rights as the sole incentive for innovation.”

The idea here is that not every country’s economic-political tag-team is well-suited to rewarding innovation. A scientist working independently in a foreign country may not, because of intellectual property laws, have the right to build upon previous advances in his field, and even if he did, the bleak prospects of protections for his own innovations in his own country and abroad may discourage him from even trying.

“A question that perhaps lends itself slightly better to the situation today is whether or not innovation would truly be discouraged without these protections.”

Perhaps the market, left to operate without the lurking variable of intellectual property law, would reward innovation all by itself.

We have to consider why intellectual property rights are (or were) effective, and be open to the idea that past solutions may not be adaptable to fit all.

Maybe intellectual property rights have outlived their usefulness. In today’s globalized society, the cost of non-collaboration may be greater in terms of potential innovation lost than the economic advantage offered by “protecting the rights” of the discoverer.

Higher-Educate India

My dad sent me a link yesterday. The header is indeed an attention-grabber—(though perhaps not quite a tweethis): “To become an economic powerhouse, India needs to educate as many as 100 million young people over the next 10 years – something never done before.”

Digital concept: information/connectivity/digital divide

This story touches on themes central to the future of education, which I feel is at least implicitly, if not explicitly, a learning outcome of the Digital Civilization course.

In a nutshell, the current Indian educational system cannot supply the talent to keep up with the country’s economic growth. The article briefly highlights some of the methods being used to confront the challenge: educational institutions backed by corporations, the internet and distance learning, and partnerships with established foreign universities.

Perhaps of greater value than the analysis of the Indian Education dilemma, however, are the quotes which speak to our Digital Concepts:

"The way education is today in the global market is not scalable," says Sam Pitroda, an education adviser to the government. "The cost of education has really increased substantially, mainly because IT has not been used effectively the world over in education."

Digital concept: information/connectivity/scalability

“As much as any of the attempts to solve India's higher education crisis, the Internet may hold the potential to transform the system the most. This is in part because the country embraces online learning more than many Western nations. It's also because the technology is improving so fast.”