L E C Tu Re T H E A R C H IT E C T U R E O F IN N O V A T IO N
LectureTHE ARCHITECTURE OF INNOVATIONLawRnNceLpsslctEvery society has resourcesthat are free and resourcesthat arecontrolled. A free resourceis one that anyoneequally can take; a controlled resource one can take only with the peimission of someoneelse.E Mc is a free resource.you can take ii and use it without thepermissionof the Einstein estate.r!2 Mercer Street, princeton, is acontrolled resource. To sleep at lL2 Mercer Street requires the permission of the Institute for Advanced Study.A time is marked not so much by the ideasthat are argued about,but by the ideas that are taken for granted.The characterof an eraharrgson what one need not question; the power in a particular moment runs with the notions that only the qazy would draw into doubt.sometimes that is just fine. I'm happy the question of infanticideis off the table; how extraordinarily tedious it would be if we regularlyhad to debatewhether we wantedto be a democracy.In the laiguaglof computer programming, it is a great and valuablathing that c6rtainideals get compiled into social life. It is an advantagethlt everything*need not at every moment be interpreted.But sometimesa society gets stuck becauseof an idea it can'tquite question,or dislodge.Sometimesthe idea ,,sticks,,the society.And when that happens, the hardest part of political action-thehardest part of changing an aspectof soiiety-is to get people to seeCopyright@2,{n2by LawrenceIcssig.t Professor of Law, Stanford Law School.This lecture was delivered as the inaugural Meredithand Kip Frey Lecture in IntellectualProperty at Duke University Schoolof Lawon March 23,2ffi1.ri'
1784DUKE LAW TOURNAL[Vol.51:1783how this taken-for-grantedidea might be wrong. To get people to believe that there might be somethingcontestableabout whai seemedunquestionable,or even to get thern to see that the story is morecomplexthan they believed.And so it is with us.we live in an era when the idea of property is just such athought, or better,just sucha non-thought;when the importanceandvalue of property is taken for granted; when it is impossible, or ,atleast for us, very har , to get anyone to entertain a view where property is not central; when to question the universality and inevitabifiiyof complete propertization is to mark yourself as an outsider. As analien.I don't mean the debate about commodificationcrystallizedbyfeminism,or a debate about whether we conceiveof socialrelationsas a kind of property right. That is a fundamentally contesteddiscourse,rich with possibilityand profoundly important.I mean somethingmuch more rnundaneand simpre.I mean thequestionof property in resources.or, more precisely,the questionofwhether resourcesshould be controlled-or how thev should be controlled.For about this question,there is apparentlyno debate.As yaleProfessor Carol Rose puts it, we live in a time when the view is that"the whole worldis best managedwhen divided among private owners."'The most creativemindsln pubtic policy turn theiiattention tohow best to divide resourcesup. The assumptionis that well-dividedresourceswill alwayswork best.we have this view-this taken-for-granted, background view:becausefor the last hundred years,we've debateda reiated question,and that debatehas come to an end. For the last hundred years,thequestion exciting political philosophy has been which systemof control works best. Should resourcesbe controlled by the state,or controlled by the market? And this question,we all rightly believe,hasbeen answered.In all but a few cases,for a wide rangeof reasons,weknow this: that the market is a better tool for contiolling resourcesthan the state.That betweenthe two, there is no real debate.1. Carol Rose, The Comedyof the Comrnons:Custom,Commerce,and InherentlyPublicProperty,53U. CHr.L. REV.7Il,71Z (1986).20021THE.But this confThis certainty abcto ignore an issuetem of control istion-should a reversusthe state,bIf communisrcentury, then conlfirst century. If ottion now will beccgive us that contr,ing systemsof conNow. this is zquestion to ask anmost in the audie:here it's been askeThe controlleessayabout the pThe paradox betwfirst great book oldenied the romanstruggleto preserlscience and the pJeromeReichmanAnd so here iof thingslearnedfture, and more liklook up for correcwhether there is .2. David Lange, ,R(Autumn 1981).3. JAMESBoyln, SOFTHE II.TFoRMATIoNSc4. J.H. Reichman, ,able Innovatiors, 53 VANReichman & Paul F. UhliImpact on Science and TRandall Davis, Mitchell Ition of Computer Progran
'ol.51:1783rple to beat seemed'y is more.st such a'tanceandble, or atlere propevitabilityler. As anallized by. relationsested dismean therestion ofd be conAs Yale:w is thatrate own.ention toll.dividedd viewquestion,rears,then of con), or conieve, hasNOnS,We:esources'ently Public2oo2lTHE ARCHITECTURE OF INNOVATION1785But this confidenceobscuresa distinct and more basicquestion.This certaintyabout the superiorityof the market to the stateleadsusto ignore an issuethat comesbefore. Not the questionof which system of control is best for any given resource,but instead the question-should a resourcebe subjectto control at all. Not the marketversusthe state,but controlledversusfree.If communismversuscapitalismwas the struggle of the twentiethcentury,then control versusfreedomwill be the debateof the twentyfirst century. If our question then was how best to control, our question now will becomewhether to control. What would a free resourcegive us that controlled resourcesdo not? What is the value in avoiding systemsof control?Now, this is a hard questionto ask at Duke. It's actually a hardquestion to ask anywhere,as it usually elicits a sheeplike stare amongmost in the audience.But it is particularly hard to ask here becausehere it's been asked,and answered,many times before.The controlled versusfree debate gets reborn within law in anessayabout the public domain, penned by Professor David Lange.'The paradoxbetweenthe controlledand the free is crystallizedin thefirst great book of the information era, by one who has romanticallydenied the romance in authorship,ProfessorJamesBoyle.' And thestruggleto preserveinternationally the spaceof the free in the core ofscience and the periphery has at its center the energy of ProfessorJeromeReichman.oAnd so here is the real struggleof one invited to Duke to speakof things learned from Duke: The exercisequickly feels lesslike a lecture, and more like an exam. At each moment I feel myself pulled tolook up for correction or scoring;I sit spinning at my desk wonderingwhether there is anything new to say to a school that reminds us2. David Lange, Recognizingthe Public Domain, 44 LAw & CoI'l-rEMP.PRoBS.147(Autumn 1981).LAW AND THE CONSTRUCTIONAND SPLEENSI3. JAMESBOYI.E,SHAMANS,SOFTWARE,oFrHE INFoRMATIoNSocIETy (1996).4. J.H. Reichman,Of Green Tulips and Legal Kudzu: RepackagingRightsin Subpatentable Innovations,53 VRNI. L. REv. 1743QW}) [hereinafterReichman,Of Green TulQs]; I.H.RecentDevelopmentand TheirReichman& Paul F. Uhlir, DatabaseProtectionat a ERKELEYTechnology,ScienceandImpact onRandall Davis,Mitchell D. Kapor & J.H. Reichman,A ManifestoConcemingthe Legal Protection of ComputerPrograms,94 CoLUM. L. REV. 2308(1994).
i::.1786DUKE LAW JOURNAL[Vol.51:1783about how much of the old there is in everything new. And then, for amoment, I'm relieved by the thought that if I say nothing new, thenyou all will feel at least vindicated in your view of how little new thereis in the work of any author,or at leastthis author.But here'sthe way I want to take your arguments,and say something new. Put most abstractly, I want to translate your argumentsinto space;to place them within an architecture.And then totemonstrate the points you've already made through the machineswe,vecome to know. Through the machinesthat have defined the potentialfor a kind of freedom that we, as a culture, have not known for a vervlong time.Co tuirauNrcATloN SysrBIrasProfessorYochai Benkler of New york University School ofLaw is a theorist of free communication who says to think about asystem of communication divided among three layers.t These layersinterconnect;each dependsupon the other; any communicationdependsupon all three.uAt the bottom of these three, there is the physical layer-thewires that connect the phones or the computers;the cable acrosswhich television might be broadcast;above that, the logical layerthe systemthat controls who gets accessto what, or what gets to runwhere; and above that, the content layer-the stuff that gets said orwritten within any given systemof communication.Now, eachof theselayersin principle could be controlledor free.They would be free if they were organizedin a commons-organizedso that anyonecould get accessor equal terms, whether theyhad topay (a fixed and neutral charge)or not. They would be conirolled ifthey were the property of someoneelse-someone who had a rieht.toexclude,or to decide whether to grant accessbasedupon his Jr herown subjectivereasons.Depending on whether these layers are free, or are controlled,the communicationssystemthat getsbuilt differs.,',CoNNECTEDWoRro 23-26 (2001) (explaining the application of the layers approachto thb, IInternet).20021THE tConsiderfourers is owned or freSpeakers' CoHyde Park's Spealall. It has becomeorganizedin a spesystem(the park)is also a commontheir own creationare free; no one ctions that might haMadison Squplace where peopowned. Only thosrden is not obligatecontrolled. But lillanguageand thecontext of the GarThe Telephonwas a single-unitarwas owned by ATtermined how andan AT&T phone (telephoneconverslogical layer underCable W. Firowned in the fornThe logical layer iwhat runs into ycshowsthat get brcwithin the controlayer, in ProfessorThis then is tsystem for innovatthan thesefour. Brderstanda very sp(
[Vol.51:1783:w. And then, for anothing new, thenow little new there'nts,and saysome:e your argumentsnd then to demone machineswe'vefined the potentialt known for a veryiversity School of; to think about arers.tThese layersrmmunication dehysical layer-thethe cable acrosshe logical layerr what gets to runf that gets said orcontrolled or free.rmons-organizedretherthey had to.d be controlled ifwho had a right tod upon his or heror are controlled.Structuresof Regulationt,so43 (2ooo).OF THE COMMONS IN Alayers approachto the2ffi21THE ARCHITECTURE OF INNOVATIONt787Considerfour possibilitiesas we vary whether each of theselayers is owned or free.Speakers'Corner. Orators and loons gather every Sunday inHyde Park's Speakers'Corner to rage about somethingor nothing atall. It has become a London tradition. It is a communication systemorganized in a specificway. The physical layer of this communicationsystem(the park) is a commons;the logical layer (the'languageused)is also a commons.And the content layer (what these nuts say) istheir own creation. It too is unowned. All three layers in this contextare free; no one can exercisecontrol over the kinds of communications that might happen here.Madison Square Garden. Madison Square Garden is anotherplace where people give speeches.But Madison Square Garden isowned. Only those who pay get to use the auditorium; and the Garden is not obligated to take all comers.The physicallayer is thereforecontrolled. But like Speakers'Corner, both the logical layer of thelanguage and the content that gets uttered is not controlled in thecontext of the Garden:They too remain free.The TelephoneSystem.Before the breakup, the telephone'systemwas a single-unitary system.The physical infrastructure of this systemwas owned by AT&T;so too was the logical infrastructure,which determined how and to whom you could connect.But what you said onan AT&T phone (within limits at least) was free: The content of thetelephone conversationswas not controlled, even if the physical andlogicallayer underneathwere.Cable W. Finally, think of cable TV. Here the physical layer isowned in the form of the wires that run the content into your house.The logical layer is owned-only the cable companiesget to decidewhat runs into your house. And the content layer is owned-theshows that get broadcastare copyrighted shows.All three layers arewithin the control of the cable TV company; no communicationslayer, in ProfessorBenkler'ssense,remainsfree.This then is the range. A communicationssystem, and hence, asystem for innovation, could be any of the four, or, of course, morethan thesefour. But thesefour set the rangethat will best help us understanda very specificexample:The Internet.
*.r!1788DUKE LAW JOURNAL[Vol.51:1783It is commonplaceto think about the Internet as a kind of commons. It is less commonplaceto actually have an idea what tt corn:monsis.tBy a commons I mean a resourcethat is free. Not necessarilvzero cost, but, if there is a cost, it is a neutrally imposed or equallyimposedcost.central Park is a commons:tan extraordinaryresourceof peacefulness in the center of a city that is anything but; an escapeand refuge that anyone can take and use without the permission of anyoneelse.The public streetsare a commons:on no one'sschedulebut vourown, you enter the public streets, and go in any direction you wish.You can turn off of Broadway onto Fifty-second street at any time,without a certificate or authorization from the government.Fermat's Last Theorem is a commons:a challengethat anyonecould pick up and complete, as Andrew wiles, after a lifetime ofstruggle,did.Open source,or free software,is a commons:the sourcecode ofLinux, for example, lies available for anyone to take, to use, to improve, to advance.No permissionii necessary;no authorizationmaybe required.These are commons becausethey are within the reach of members of the relevant community without the permission of anyoneelse.They are resourcesthat are protected by a liability rule ratherthan a property rule. ProfessorReichman,for example,has suggestedthat some innovation be protected by a liability rule rather than aproperty rule.'The point is not that no control is present,but ratherthat the kind of control is different from the control we grant to prop-erty.,t'7. seegenerallyid, (discussingthe idea of the commonsin intellectualproperty theory). '8. I usedcentral Park, Fermat'sLast Theorem,and open sourceasexamplesof commrjffiin an AddressBefore the First Amendment and the Media Symposiumat the FordhamUnivetclisity Schoolof Law on February 9, 1999.For the full text of this lecture, seeLawrenceCommonsand Code,9FoRDHAMINTELL.pRop. MEDrA& ENr. L.J. 405(L999\.9. SeegenerallyReichman,Of Green Tulips,supra note 4 (arguingthat protectingsubpatentableinnovations with a liability rule rather than a property rule would yield abenefit to society).20021THE,/and wires linking chave completeconers,or wires linkin,On top of themake the Net run.box called TCP/IItagrams,but we mcus exclusivelyon rFor at the corsign. At the core rend" (e2e). FirstDavid Reed, and Iintelligence rests i:Simple networks,sThe reason fcthe Internet didn'rapplications couldthem. New contenwork simply took Imental feature of 'The network was sthe consequenceoity to discriminatewanted, the netwctectednever to allcThis means tlnetwork that distirbuilt this networknetwork and shareing, not exclusiveproperty system,wfree. That wasits nThus, on top rlayer that is free. .4that is both free anThe free partpublic domain. Tl10, LEssIG,supranoIt. Id. at 38. Davidphonenetworks,earningI
[ Vol. 5 1:1 7 83ret as a kind of coman idea what a comfree. Not necessarilv' imposed or equalli:y resourceof peacet; an escapeand refermissionof anyone:'s schedulebut yourdirection you wish.I Street at any time,/efnment.allenge that anyone, after a lifetime of: the sourcecode oftake, to use, to imr authorizationmaythe reach of memrmission of anyoneliability rule rathermple,has suggestedrule rather than apresent,but rather lwe grant to prop-oo has these three'es and computers,:ctualproperty theory).: asexamplesof commonsn at the FordhamUniverrre, see LawrenceLessig,2oo2)THE ARCHITECTURE OF INNOVATION1789and wires linking computers.Theseresourcesare owned.The ownershave completecontrol over what they do with their wires or computers,or wires linking computers.Propertygovernsthis layer.On top of the physicallayer is a logical layer-the protocolsthatmake the Net run. Theseprotocolsare many, all chuckedinto a singlebox called TCP/P. Their essenceis a system for exchangingdatagrams,but we miss somethingimportant about the systemif we focus exclusivelyon the essence.For at the core of this logical layer is a principle of network design. At the core of the Internet's designis an ideal called o'end-toend" (e2e). First articulated by network architects Jerome Saltzer,David Reed, and David Clark,toe2e saysto build the network so thatintelligencerests in the ends,and the network itself remains simple.Simplenetworks,smart applications.The reasonfof this designwas simple.With e2e, innovation onthe Internet didn't depend upon the network. New content or newapplicationscould run regardlessof whether the network knew aboutthem. New content or new applicationswould run becausethe network simply took packetsof data and moved them along.The fundamental feature of this network design was neutrality among packets.The network was simple,or "stupid," in David Isenberg'ssense,ttandthe consequenceof stupidity, at least among computers,is the inability to discriminate. Innovators thus knew that, if their ideas werewanted, the network would run them; that this network was architected never to allow anyoneto decidewhat would be allowed.This means that this layer of this network-this feature of thenetwork that distinguished it from all that had been built beforebuilt this network into a commons.one was free to get accessto thisnetwork and shareits resources.The protocols were designedfor sharing, not exclusive use. Discrimination, which lies at the heart of aproperty system,wasnot possiblein eZe.This systemwas codedto befree. That wasits nature.Thus, on top of a physical layer that is controlled rests a logicallayer that is free. And then, on top of this free layer is a contentlayerthat is both free and controlled.The free part is all of the content that effectively rests in thepublic domain. The facts, data, abandonedproperty, undiscovered10s(1eee).ing that protectingsmall,v rule would vield a net10. LEssIG,supra fiote 6, at34-35.11. Id. at 38. David Isenbergwas an engineerat Bell Labs. He advocated"stupid" telephonenetworks,earninghim greatsupporton the web,but not from his employers.Id.
1790DUKE LAW TOURNAL[Vol.51:1783theft-this is the content that is open for the taking and that is takenopenly. But it also includesa part dedicatedto be open: open sourceor free software,dedicatedto be free.This free resourcedoesmore than entertain, or build culture: thisfree resource teachesthe world about how the Net functions, or isfree. For example, every web page both displays and carries itssource, so that its source can be copied and modified for differentdisplays.This free content coexists with content that is controlled. Software that is sold; digital content-music, movies, greeting cards-thatis controlled.You can link to mp3.comand listen to musii that is free;you can link to amazon.comand read a book that is controlled.Thenetwork doesn't care much about what linking occurs. It's neutralamong the linking, and the result of this neutrality is a mix.This, then, is a picture of the complexity we call the Internet. Atthe bottom is a physicallayer that is controlled; on top of it is a logicallayer that is free; and on top of both is a content layer that mixesfreeand controlled.This complexity builds a commons.And this commonshas beenthe location of some of the most extraordinary innovation that wehave seen.Not innovation in just the dotcom sense,but innovationinthe ways humans interact, innovation in the ways that culture isspread,and most importantly, innovation in the ways in which culturegets built. The innovation of the
p e rm is s io n of th e E in s te in e s ta te .r!2 M e rc e r S tre e t, p rin c e to n , is a co n tro lle d re so u rce .T o sle e p a t lL 2 M e rce r S tre e t re q u ire s th e p e r_ m issio n o f th e In stitu te fo r A d va n ce d S tu d y. A tim e is m a rke d n o t so m u ch b y th e id e a sth a t
Scrum, Agile Software Development. with Ken Schwaber (Prentice Hall, fall 2001), a provocative book that assumes software development is more like . new product development. than the manufacturing-like processes that the software industry has used for the last 20 years. Arie van Bennekum. has been actively involved in DSDM and the DSDM Consortium since 1997. Before that he had been working .
The eye-catching orange-red colour of the bridge also (2) . its popularity. Construction of the road bridge started in 1933. At the time, many people doubted whether it was technically possible to span the 1,600-metre-wide strait. But despite this, the project (3) . . There is also a sidewalk for pedestrians on the bridge but it s quite a (4) . to walk across it. For a start, it is three .
Level 1 Pass Level 1 Merit Level 2 Pass Level 2 Merit Level 2 Distinction Learning Aim A: Investigate Media Products A.1P1 Identify media products, their purpose and audience, using limited examples from one or more sectors. A.1M1 Outline media products, their purpose and audience, using basic examples from one or more sectors. A.2P1
(e.g. those holding a BTEC at level 3 and 1 A level) and then enrolling in a first degree qualification. The A level route has historically been the traditional pathway to university for secondary school pupils, but a full BTEC level 3 is notionally equivalent to two A levels and it is now an alternative route into higher education. Admission .
penyuluhan budidaya ikan air tawar sehingga dapat diterima dengan baik. Kata Kunci: Budidaya, Ikan air tawar, Macromedia Flash, Pembelajaran, Waterfall. Abstract Information systems support and make the performance of an agency to be implemented properly and can handle a variety of activities with the use of information technology. Multimedia-based learning system combines two or more media .
Cambridge English: Flyers About these sample papers These sample papers show you what the Cambridge English: Flyers test looks like. When children know what to expect in the test, they will feel more confident and prepared. To prepare for Cambridge English: Flyers, children can practise parts of the test or do the complete practice test.
Cambridge English: . Main activities (copies of Part 1 Question 1, Resource 1, Resource 2, and . Now your English teacher has asked you to write an essay for homework. Write your essay using all the notes and giving reasons for your point of view. Having a chat with friends in your free time can be as important as studying. Do you agree? Notes Write about: 1.learning to get on with people .
Case 721E XT Reference/Direction Sensor The magnet is mounted to the arm with the existing bolt. On the 721E there is a clamp bracket available from Loup Electronics that clamps over the lift arm and holds the magnet. Normal weighing height is bottom of bucket about 6 feet off the ground. Reference/Direction Sensor . Loadlog 800/8000 Installation Supplement Case 721E XT Remote Enter Switch The .
