Talk:Strategy for Information Markets/Non-IP approaches to innovation

essays on modern patronage

 * Laura Miller on patronage as a possibly-returning business model for creative works, with mention of Kickstarter and tradition.
 * Neal Stephenson see answer #2, "the lack of respect" on "Dante writers" versus "Beowulf writers" TDang (discuss • contribs) 23:06, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

diffusion of innovation
Might not exactly belong in this section, but certainly something about diffusion of innovation belongs somewhere in this book. One place to consider starting: Communication_Theory/Diffusion_of_Innovations. TDang (discuss • contribs) 17:12, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

TDang review April 2012
I'm reviewing this version. I'll likely be more critical than complimentary, because (a) that's the way I am and (b) that's what will help improve things. Please don't take the criticism-over-compliments to mean I have a wholly negative view.

Make sure to check the all-purpose review thoughts as well.

TDang (discuss • contribs) 21:09, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
 * The theme of the introduction is good, but it needs to be thought out more carefully:
 * "guarantee profits"--clearly it doesn't guarantee profits, for instance if the IP is terrible or there's a better substitute.
 * "comes at a cost, and which may de-incentivize innovation given the additional costs"--this isn't clear. Maybe it can't be clear until ideas are more developed later, in which case it should be removed. Or maybe it just needs to be clarified?
 * Open Source
 * Overall, this section needs to be thought about (maybe researched) more carefully.
 * public source--this doesn't mean anything that I'm aware of, perhaps you mean "public domain"?
 * "Open source owners still have the right to exclude someone to access or edit it."--in many cases, that's not true, and it's certainly misleading. I think it's best to pull it out or explain better.
 * Worth mentioning Copyleft-type licenses here, and maybe another major success like Linux or Apache.
 * Academic
 * "Nash Equilibrium Theorem is finished in Nash’s graduate report." This needs to be phrased differently, maybe "As an example of an academic producing ..."
 * Wolfram Alpha--I believe that's a for-profit and IP-protected project.
 * Many/most academic papers are copyrighted currently. However, the profitability of the paper is usually not the primary concern of the author.
 * This section very much needs references.
 * This could be connected to a new movement for "open access academic journals" (http://www.boston.com/yourtown/cambridge/articles/2012/04/28/harvard_pushes_back_against_academic_publishers_pricing_encourages_open_access/)
 * Artistic
 * Again, this section very much needs references.
 * The internet was initially developed by the U.S. government, not artists.
 * You'll need some reference talking about how manga artists do it not-for-the-meny (or use a different example with a reference)
 * deviantart is a good example.
 * Prize Incentives--This is a good start. One thing to be careful of is that it may be mixing up things where there are both prizes and IP, such as the Indie games competition, where there are prizes, but the creators still own the IP to their work. It's OK to have both of those things active at once, but it needs to be clear what's a "pure" non-IP example and what's mixed.
 * Patronage--Go read this, mainly the part starting at "2) The lack of respect..". Normally, I wouldn't suggest using Slashdot as a reference, but in this case, it's referencing Neal Stephenson (a successful author) writing about the current way of publishing, and talking about Patronage.
 * Otherwise, again, it needs references.
 * Kickstarter / Provision point
 * "this approach is a modern day version of patronage"--it works very differently from traditional patronage, though, where the creation of the work is supposed to glorify the patron as well as the creator. It's hard to argue that in a project crowdfunded by 15,000 people he work glorifies all 15,000.
 * "For instance, if more projects are introduced then there will be more variety for funders to choose from."--You might be onto something, but it's not obvious.
 * The point of provision point mechanisms is to counter the voluntary contribution / public goods problem. Describing this doesn't make sense without talking about it in those terms, and providing references.
 * Diffusion of innovations--This looks like a good start for something, but not this page. Can you move it to its own page?
 * References--The references currently there look good, but I've noted a lot of places above where references are needed.
 * Public goods--The nature of encouraging innovation is getting past the public goods problem. Intellectual property is one way to get past that problem. All the alternatives need to be considered in light of the same problem.
 * One possibility is something like a provision point mechanism which explicitly recognizes the public goods problem, but handles it a different way.
 * Other possibilities consider the public goods problem in different ways.
 * Patronage implies that a patron may get non-financial utility (prestige) out of funding creative works.
 * Creators may have non-financial motivations to create (art for the love of it, impressing people of romantic interest).
 * There may be financial motivations which aren't captured by IP. Open-source software is often developed by for-profit businesses just to help them run their business, or because they provide a complement to the software.
 * Academic, open-source, and many artistic communities are often described as having a gift economy.