Few companies last more than 50 years. The 100 year mark is even rarer. IBM stands out as a company that has done that. But who knew that Radio Shack is nearing that mark? And some are noting its possible death knell, because of the recent announcement that it is closing about 1,100 stores. The pundits have gone over the mistakes and decried Radio Shack’s inability to play n the modern tech space. I think there is hope and mistake.
Radio Shack appealed to techies. It needs to return to that. My dad made me read the basics of stereos before I could get his old stereo. It was a Radio Shack book. Mobile phones and the like are not for hobbyists. Radio Shack has been at its best helping folks who want to deal with early tech that is tipping consumer. Radios, hi-fi stereos, wires, circuits, transistors, early computers (some might recall when folks took them apart and played with them).
Given my focus on 3D printing I may be biased. Heck. Sure. I am biased. But I am pretty certain RS could re-invigorate itself if it hires relatively savvy people to help with the next wave of home tech. As Nest, 3D printing, and more mean we are automating and tinkering, RS could be a great source for parts and knowledge where no one is competing. (Unlike the mobile market). That is where RS thrives. Of course when I went to one and knew more about speaker wire than the floor person, it was clear RS has lost its way. But there’s a time to reap and sow. Now is the time to sow. RS could be a place for drone, maker, and other tech hobbyists/enthusiasts. The core community is used to online discussions and help. But as the tech goes mainstream there is a gap between I dig it but need help and brainless consumer purchase. RS should embrace that. That is value many consumers who are starting to play with this technology would love. Or at least I would.
Apple’s Your Verse ad campaign poses an odd and maybe cynical offer to us. Don’t pay attention to the call of law, business, or medicine. Be a poet. Be a creator. Contribute your verse. What are we on American Idol? Or as Monty Python put it maybe all we want to do is sing. Apple panders to the look at me right now world. The film is about free thinkers. Maybe that is the same as being a poet. And as Kevin J.H Dettmar argues at The Atlantic, the film is “a terrible defense of the humanities.” He points out that the film celebrates enthusiasm over any critical thought” “Keating doesn’t finally give his students anything in its place besides a kind of vague enthusiasm.”
Having gone to a prep school, I am less upset by the film than Dettmar. But then I may project my experience onto the film’s gaps. Even before prep school I went to a grade school where the boring “Latin—Agricolam, Agricola, Agricolae, Agricolarum, Agricolis, Agricolas, Agrilcolis” was part of the curriculum in eighth grade. That teacher happened to have done his own translation of Caesar’s Road to Gaul. He’d re-enact charges of legions and evoke swords. In high school we had many inspiring teachers. They kicked our butts for fake enthusiasm. Larry McMillin once asked me a question about Shaw’s Man and Superman. I came up with some ramble. He said “That’s not Shaw. That’s just Desai,” in his Southern gentlemen’s voice that somehow had scorn yet support. Support. For what? He called me out but made me see that I could do more. How?
Rigor. To the waste bin with brownie points for showing up. Be gone empty claims of it’s good, because I said it. Learn the fundamentals. Master the material. As Phillipe Nonet said to my class in college when someone started a sentence with “I think”, “That you think it, does not matter. It matters what it says.”
It turns out that free thinking is much more difficult than Keating realizes. The rigor of learning the fundamentals allows us to be liberated. Liberal arts are about freedom and how we are unmoored from habit. But knowing the foundations is how you might see where they may not operate anymore. So sure contribute your verse. But if you want it to be a good one, let alone a great one, let alone one that might allow you to eat, put in the work. Grab everything you can from college and post-graduate schools. Contrary to recent pushes from big law (note that with 30-505 margins the big firms can absorb training costs), law schools training people to think in sharp and critical ways are providing an education that connects to the law and much more. But that requires diligence, drudgery, and didactic moments. Those happen to turn into gifts of knowledge, skill, and the ability to learn on your own. At that point, your verse might be worth something.
Assumptions can break models and render rules incoherent. Some states such as California have required that a driverless or autonomous vehicle still have a licensed driver at the wheel in case the systems fail. A friend noted that this idea is useful in the rare case the vehicle encounters a situation it cannot handle. The idea may work today. It won’t work in the future.
What happens when the next generation is raised on driverless cars? Today we can assume that drivers have enough hours behind the wheel so that they might be able to take over if need be. But in five or ten years, what exactly will driver’s ed look like? Would we require youthful drivers, somewhat dangerous based on lack of experience, to drive more? That seems to defeat the upside to the technology. Yet if a generation of drivers never really drives, how can we expect them to take over for a sophisticated system pressed beyond its capabilities? As with pilots we might use simulators and such. Yet how many hours of that will be needed? Would it test the moments when the car cannot handle the situation? These points remind of the early days of Westlaw and Lexis. When I was in school, we were required to use analog research to start. The idea was that we may be without a terminal or access to legal databases. This problem would arise in courthouses. It was true at the time, but a few years later, the Internet and web based access negated that idea. There may still be some training on the old ways, but how much anyone needs or uses them is unclear. With cars, there will be a gap period when some will have the systems and some won’t. But at some point, I’d guess that most cars will have the system, and/or fewer people will own cars at all. Many may subscribe to services instead of owning a vehicle. Driving by hand will be a special art for the rich and old schoolers as they head to stores that sell LPs.
So what may be the supercool solution? Like Onstar, a car maker may have a group of drone operators for the outlier problems. If a car fails, a signal is sent. A video game junkie, err drone expert, takes over to handle the vehicle by remote. That person is training on cars and drone operation of them all the time. They have the expertise to take over when needed. Yes, you may cue the creepy music at this point.
With apologies to B. Traven and John Huston, I note that Duke’s Center for the Public Domain has a nice post about what might have been in the public domain. In my paper The Life and Death of Copyright, I go over how a few authors rallied with American interests to extend copyright term. I also show that no matter which of the main theories one looks to for IP, none supports copyright after death. None.
In other words, folks who usually disagree about all sorts of nuances in copyright, (It’s labor! It’s the personhood! It’s utilitarian!) converge on, or at least have no good support for copyright after death. Paul Heald’s work shows that the dreaded under-production myth is just that, a myth. Aram Sinnreich’s The Piracy Crusade just came out and gets into the problems with locking up work. I’ve just started it, but his run through history, sociology, and more looks to be a great addition to the literature in this space.
So it’s a new year. Old fights are with us. New ones will come. The sun also rises. Time for naked lunch.
(Note: Burroughs claimed the phrase, Naked Lunch, meant a “frozen moment when everyone sees what is on the end of every fork.” or the truth albeit ugly).
Perhaps I find this fascinating because I have heard from so many entrepreneurs about how the options presented to them by the current intellectual property legal system fail to meet their needs. Or because of my research on copyright fixation. Or because I’m fairly convinced I was a magpie in a prior life. But through the diligence of a research assistant (thanks, Benton Patterson), I recently came across i-DEPOT, and I find it very interesting.
i-DEPOT is a sort of safe deposit box for ideas, offered in Benelux through the Benelux Office of Intellectual Property (BOIP). The website is very careful to say, repeatedly, that i-DEPOT does not convey any IP rights. Rather, it claims that i-DEPOT is a “legal means of proof that issues a date stamp,” providing that a particular individual is “the rightful owner of a particular creation at a specific date.” It does not offer legal protection at all, except in so far as it serves as a source of evidence. After a creator or inventor submits something to i-DEPOT, the individual receives a certificate with an assigned number. (Here I am tempted to analogize to the Universitatis Commitiatum E Pluribus Unum, but that might be unfair.)
The website of the BOIP recommends that i-DEPOT be used while an idea is in the development stage, or if an individual wants to keep her idea secret. Maybe the patent costs are too great, or the life-cycle of the product is so short that a patent would be worthless. It can also be used for IP rights that do not require formal registration, such as copyright (does this serve as a sort of official validation of the “poor man’s copyright”?). Finally, the BOIP suggests that i-DEPOT enables creators and inventors to feel more secure in negotiations with potential business partners by including the i-DEPOT number in a confidentiality agreement.
The BOIP frames this as a good first step in the innovation process. I’m interested to hear from others on this. What are your thoughts? Does anyone know about anything similar in other countries? Or about how widely used this is in Benelux?