Does Capitalism Stifle Innovation?
From the beginning of the personal computer movement, richly described
in Steven Levy’s book Hackers,
there was a euphoria abuzz about how the free flow of information would
literally change the world. Not that that hasn’t happened or doesn’t continue
to do so, but it is unarguable that the early adopters did not succeed
in their efforts to ensure total free flow of information. One of
the last gems in their crown is the politician’s fading reluctance to tax
the internet. But there is still one bright shining jewel: Open Source
in general and Linux in particular.
By 1980 there was really no mass marketing of "personal computers."
There were darn few choices anyway. As a result, at this point in
the timeline of the personal computer it was just a bunch of hobbyists
kicking the technology can down the road. Hackers.
These hackers were the nerds of the day. The geeks. They formed clubs so
they could meet to discuss all the new techniques they had learned to make
their gizmos whiz and whir. Over time, these groups began to set up simple
electronic bulletin boards so all the different clubs could interact, propagate
and build upon their combined knowledge further. There was really a strong
sense amongst many of the industry’s pioneers that information should be
shared openly and freely–for the benefit of all. They felt that these
new computing and communication capabilities would usher in a new age of
freedom. Keep in mind, these hobbyists primarily were in communities like
MIT, Berkeley, and San Jose.
Then came the dark horseman, rearing his ugly head. Call him Capitalism.
When IBM entered the game, the capitalist smelled money. When capitalist
smell money strange things start to happen. They want to lay claim to things
that have value. They want to control that value and personally benefit
from it. Enter serious young men in crisp blue suits touting license restrictions,
copyrights, intellectual property, and software copy protection schemes.
The software copy protection schemes were a stop-gap measure only. There
was a robust market in software that could defeat the copy protection.
Of which you could of course get a free copy. You needed several of the
most popular anti-copy protection programs in your everyday arsenal in
order to overcome all the copy protection schemes you might come up against.
Recognizing that the digital locks would always be pickable, the capitalist
went to the lawmakers. Those who advocated the free sharing of knowledge
and information are basically turned into criminals if they swap software.
The term ‘Hackers’ becomes a dirty word. Funny how similar sounding Napster
is to Hacker.
So the question hangs, by allowing the capitalists to lock down and put
a lid on the free-flow of technical knowledge, did we hinder the development
of technological advancements over the last 25 years? If so, by how much?
I guess the answer to that question boils down to whether the enthusiasm
of a bunch of brilliant kids dreaming of utopia could provide the incentive
and leadership to entice society as a whole to adopt, and thus fund, technology
to its current state. Probably not.
If today’s capitalists fail to win the day in their efforts to outlaw
free Linux, (and thereby making
the users of Linux criminals,) and Linux can overtake Microsoft’s various
flavors and become the predominant operating system on the market, the
question of whether information free flow (Open Source) is a better model
for technical advancements over the capitalist’s strict regulation of intellectual
property will have to be re-evaluated. The disastrous security track record
of Windows in all it’s flavors is an excellent example of stifled innovation
due to the privatization of information.
Does Capitalism Stifle Tyranny?
From a different perspective, you could also pose the question does capitalism
protect us from tyranny. The tyranny that would result from, lets say,
one pharmaceutical company owning and controlling all the medicine. With
our country’s addiction to every kind of medication under the sun, from
high blood pressure to anti-flaccids, the voting block– or mob as the
case may be– would inevitably bend to the subtle whim of those who control
the magical life-extending potions (FDA approved, of course).
Or how about one software company owning and controlling all the essential
knowledge needed to support something essential like… life support systems.
Capitalism, by its build-a-better-mousetrap nature, inherently disperses
economic activity relating to the provision of goods and services. The
lure of profits is the incentive that stokes the fires of innovation. That’s
how a little company called Microsoft can knock off Big Blue as the dominant
provider of personal computer operating systems. That’s also how Microsoft
in turn can get knocked off by Linux. Individual innovation ensures that
everybody has access to the newer and better technology. Individual innovation
keeps a single corporate entity from controlling entire technologies. Individual
innovation keeps the flow of information and technology on stream.
Nothing motivates innovation like the chance at big money.
Is the bottom line that the success of capitalism is largely due to it’s
natural tendancy to seek the right balance between encouraging technological
advancement and protecting private (intellectual) property while not stifling
the free market system that keeps it all going? Politics not withstandng
of course. There is nothing worse for capitalism than a good dose of socialism.