The Wealth of Networks by Yochai Benkler

In The Wealth of Networks: How Social Production Transforms Markets and Freedom, Yochai Benkler discusses his vision of the role of technology in social change. He rejects an overly deterministic vision of technology (which he connects with Lewis Mumford and Marshall McLuhan), but also rejects a view of technology as immaterial to a society’s direction:

A view of technologies as “tools that happen, more or less, to be there, and are employed in any given society in a pattern that depends only on what that society and culture makes of them is too constrained. A society that has no wheel and no writing has certain limits on what it can do.” (17)

Instead, he adopts a “simple” idea that is “distinct from a naive determinism”:

Different technologies make different kinds of human action and interaction easier or harder to perform. All other things being equal, things that are easier to do are more likely to be done, and things that are harder to do are less likely to be done. All other things are never equal. That is why technological determinism in the strict sense–if you have technology “t,” you should expect social structure or relation “s” to emerge–is false. (17)

To illustrate the point, he describes the different impacts that new ocean-going technologies had on Spain or Portugal (their land ambitions were curtailed by strong neighbors) and China (which focused inland). He also notes how the printing press impacted Protestant countries (where individual reading of the Bible was encouraged) differently than Catholic countries (where “where religion discouraged individual, unmediated interaction with texts, like France and Spain”).

He summarizes his position by saying the following:

Neither deterministic nor wholly malleable, technology sets some parameters of individual and social action. It can make some actions, relationships, organizations, and institutions easier to pursue, and others harder. (17)

In regards to modern networking technologies (like the Internet), he warns:

The same technologies of networked computers can be adopted in very different patterns. There is no guarantee that networked information technology will lead to the improvements in innovation, freedom, and justice that I suggest are possible. (18)

Image by spiralstares via Flickr

An article in Slate claims:

While legal automation will be a boon for those who can’t afford representation, it’s bad news for lawyers. The industry is already in a slump, and law school is no longer seen as a sure path to riches. Because software will allow fewer lawyers to do a lot more work, it’s sure to drive down both price and demand.

My opinion? Software won’t replace lawyers, but it will reduce the demand for certain routine legal services and raise the complexity of litigation. Those without the software will be at a disadvantage. It will also cut into the work of paralegals. But not lawyers.

(Part of this reminds me of the claims in the early 20th century that polygraph machines would replace juries, since machines could judge truth of falsity and revolutionize the entire legal process. That didn’t happen, of course.)

It’s true that being a lawyer today involves a great deal of drudge work, especially at the lower echelons, and certainly eliminating some of the most time-consuming parts of the profession has the potential to reduce the workload. But while computer programs to generate wills have cut back on the demand for bare-bones legal services, the general result, I think, has been to increase the number of written wills, not to reduce the people who consult a lawyer for more complex drafting. Similarly, I expect contract-writing tools to help create more written contracts, not to reduce the important of lawyers who write and review more complex deals. The result will, hopefully, be more routinized, written business processes–but may result in freeing lawyers to spend more time drafting complex documents that exceed the abilities of programs to interpret alone.

The basics of document review can already be outsourced abroad in some cases, and using machine processing is rather similar. It helps with the routine and frees up time for the more complex.

The law is a complex human construction because society is a complex human construction. As long as it stays that way (and as long as people form a society, it will), it will take humans versed in its complexities to manage it fully.

So it’s always been distressing to me that PACER, which provides access to federal court records beyond just the final decisions that Google Scholar (or even LexisNexis and Westlaw) specialize in. Sure, for most legal work, the final decisions matter the most, but for historians and other scholars, seeing the party materials and “raw” details of the cases provides useful data for analysis. I had always hoped that PACER–which I hear runs a surplus anyway–would trend downward in price as the cost of delivering electronic access decreases. Instead comes this news:

The cost of electronic access to court files through the Public Access to Court Electronic Records program, better known as PACER, will rise to 10 cents per page from the current 8 cents per page, the Judicial Conference said.

via Federal courts to hike records’ fees 25% — Josh Gerstein — POLITICO.com.

I suppose it’s a nice gesture that they will waive the fees if you spend under $15/year, and I suppose the role of grant money is to fund my access to such materials, but honestly, I don’t think this is a good trend. I suppose the courts were focused on for-profit lawyers–or more specifically, on extracting a bit of silver from those lawyers–when they considered the pricing for PACER, and I see their point. This is the kind of necessary decision when taxes don’t fully fund government infrastructure (like the courts), but I lament the move to extract more capital from what ought to be public records.

The trend should be towards more open government and open courts, not the reverse.

But really, each of these has choices is distinct, and in many cases their use-cases do not overlap. Carrier pigeons, for example, are really point-to-point messaging mechanisms, unless you have a flock–and they take time to breed, so they are a poor choice if you have need to keep people updated on a variety of different topics. And unlike the owls of Harry Potter, carrier pigeons go to places and not people–so tracking down your significant other in either Greece or Italy–why won’t they call?–is out. (You may, of course, find different ways to make these work for you–in the digital age, square pegs can be refactored to fit in round holes, after all.)

Image via Wikipedia

Facebook

Facebook is the ideal place for keeping in touch with real people I’ve really met, especially if I’m likely to lose track of them otherwise. It’s geographically diverse, lets me share enough to give people a sense they’ve got an idea what I’m up to, and (despite its best efforts otherwise) lets me otherwise stay private (with caveats). So who do I connect with on Facebook? Friends (of various levels) from high school, college, postgrad. Friends–not professional colleagues–from work. Tricky decisions of categorization abound, of course: is this colleague enough of a friend for me to connect with them on Facebook, or do they belong on LinkedIn only? Segregating people into groups with various privacy settings help, of course, as does not sharing things I don’t want the public to possibly see. Sure, this is friend-stuff, but nothing I put on Facebook would be too embarrassing, or cost me a job. Facebook has been pushing pages (AP, PBS, BBC, business generally) that share non-personal information, but I’m increasingly finding this a distraction from the reason I use Facebook: people.

Image via CrunchBase

LinkedIn

LinkedIn has been touted as the professional version of Facebook, but that’s only partly true. LinkedIn is not really about sharing day-to-day details about me, but rather about highlighting my accomplishments and work. But beyond that, it’s mostly a Rolodex of up-to-date business cards of people I’ve dealt with professionally. I will connect with any colleague (or one of my undergrads) on LinkedIn without hesitation, unlike on Facebook. In terms of privacy, well, the point is to be visible and findable professionally. So that’s what goes up there. No home addresses, no home telephone numbers, just business contact details.

Image via CrunchBase

Twitter

Twitter is for link sharing and quick conversations (very quick, and very short) with absolutely anyone I find remotely interesting. I don’t refollow anyone who follows me, only those I think are interesting. I share things I want to broadcast with the world (but am too polite to get a bullhorn). Sometimes it’s personal, sometimes professional, but always with the idea that anyone might read it. It’s great for more distant connections with people I may or may not ever meet, but who say and write about interesting things.

Image via CrunchBase

Google Plus

Google Plus is the new player, but it brings in some of the best of both Twitter and Facebook. Yes, I can put my actual friends in circles and easily limit what I share with just them (so that’s a bit like Facebook, but more focused). No, not everyone I know on Facebook is on Google Plus (and may never be). Google Plus also lets me follow people I’ve never met who say interesting things, like Twitter, but it emphasizes longer posts and more detailed, threaded conversations–without forcing me to dance with privacy settings as on Facebook, and without assuming these people are actually my friends (even if they could be). In many respects, I’m finding that it challenges quick-blogging services like Posterous and Tumblr more than Facebook or LinkedIn. It does seem a potential threat to Twitter, which I am finding myself more and more viewing as a social link sharing service as opposed to a discussion mechanism (but it’s GREAT for that).

Summary

So, here it is in short form:

Facebook: real people, real sharing of personal (but not too personal) information. If you actually know me in “real life,” friend me. If not, go elsewhere. I share semi-personal stuff here (what I had for dinner and who made it).

LinkedIn: real people doing real business networking. If I’ve met you in a professional capacity, connect with me. If not, well, tell me why we can do business! I share only professional info here.

Twitter: on the Internet, no one knows if you’re a dog, but we do care if you have something interesting to share. If you do, follow me and I might follow you back. If you don’t, follow me and I won’t follow you back. I share thoughts and links here.

Google Plus: real people (for now) sharing what they found interesting today, including articles, thoughts, stories, and photos. If you actually know me, I might add you to my Friends circle; if not, but you are interesting, you’ll make Following. Please give me commentary with your links!

Maybe next week I’ll explain how I use carrier pigeons.

Related articles

• Google+ will be squeezed out of social world, says LinkedIn CEO — Computerworld (mbcalyn.wordpress.com)
• It’s Google Plus vs. Twitter, Not Facebook (scalableintimacy.com)
• Different social networks for different purposes (inpropriapersona.com)

At least at the University of California, San Diego, the process involves tech transfer officers–6 for the life sciences, 3 for other kinds of technology, and 1 who does both–reviewing the research done at UCSD. They look for innovations that may be potentially turned into marketable intellectual property. According to Dr. Montisano, a life sciences tech transfer officer at UCSD, they do not “police faculty.” As a result, they sometimes do not learn of new technology until after publication, which immediately causes the loss of international patent rights, and puts U.S. patent rights on a 1-year timeline.

If they do manage to intercept the technology in time–either through researchers submitting it to them directly, or by discovering it after publication–they review the innovation, and may file a provisional patent application to preserve their rights (this allows publication). They then have a year to convert that to a full patent.

Once they have provisional protection in place, the office looks for a good licensee for the technology. They first put a description of the innovation on the UCSD web site, making it available to interested parties who may be seeking such technology. They also identify and actively target potential companies for licensing, focusing on those they know do work in the field and who may be interested in the technology.

The point, according to Dr. Montisano, is to get the technology out into the world through commercialization, not to make a fortune, and UCSD looks for licensees on this basis. Such a focus emphasizes the public nature of the university, and emphasizes the role of the tech transfer office as the buffer zone between private and public enterprise–they license innovations for money, but do so with a goal of benefitting the public.

Additionally, the distribution process also protects researchers from undue market influences. The university owns the invention, not the professor, or grad student, or research tech. 50% of the incoming money goes to the university as a whole, while the remaining 50% is split by the department between those who developed the invention and the department. Thus, even the incoming money is diluted and sifted, buffering the researchers themselves from direct contact with the commercial players.

More rules are in place when it comes to researchers profiting or being overly involved in the commercial enterprise while retaining their role at the university. A university researcher cannot be the executive of a licensee company nor a board member, but can sit on a scientific advisory board. Such a researcher can own shares in the company, though, suggesting at least one way for the market to more directly intrude on an individual academic. Nonetheless, to be full involved in directing a licensee, a researcher must leave the university and their post as an academic and fully enter the commercial world.

Finally, the office itself is insulated from the money involved. Although they bring in millions to the University of California, UCSD’s technology transfer office is funded entirely by the state. No funding comes through a percentage of license fees and no officer receives specific bonuses for signing deals. This emphasizes their focus on the public service of commercializing technology, rather than on their use as market-enablers.

Madey v. Duke

Even after Madey, many researchers continue to ignore patent protections, and continue their work as if they didn’t need to license technology. The result has been increasing claims by license-holders, and a growing sense by researchers that this is complicating their scientific pursuits and introducing extra costs and restrictions.

Universities, now large licensors themselves of new technology thanks to Bayh-Dole and technology transfer offices, have turned to, in the language of Professor Robin Feldman, “open transfer” agreements to lossen up these restrictions. Such agreements are added to agreements when universities license their technologies for industry to develop, and permit both the licensing university and any other nonprofit they allow to use the technology for education and research. This approach co-opts the mechanisms of the market, rather like open-source licensing does, to permit the continued free sharing and publishing in the academic community.

What do these clauses look like? In the case of the University of California, San Diego, Article 2.2 of the sample agreement for licensing captures this “open transfer” provision:

2.2 Reservation of Rights. UNIVERSITY reserves the right to:
(a) use the Invention, and Patent Rights for educational and research purposes;
(b) publish or otherwise disseminate any information about the Invention at any time; and
(c) allow other nonprofit institutions to use and publish or otherwise disseminate any information about Invention and Patent Rights for educational and research purposes.

Part (a) and (b) are relatively standard in all licensing agreements, commercial or not. Most industry licenses also permit the licensor to use their own technology. Part (c) is the interesting part, as it permits other nonprofit institutions to also use and even publish on the technology, provided it is for educational and research purposes. In other words, what the Federal Circuit has taken out of common law, university tech transfer offices have recreated through their own market-focused and neoliberal license agreements.

This approach suggests that, despite efforts to commercialize the “ivory tower,” there remain creative resistance that seeks to maintain the traditional values and benefits of an academic research environment.

There are, of course, numerous challenges for tech transfer offices. Within the university, most scientists are “in it for the science” and not for the money, according to Dr. Montisano. University researchers have the tendency to publish first, forcing his office to chase after them to try to prevent the loss of patent rights (publishing first loses most international rights immediately, though U.S. law allows for a year’s grace). Outside the university, industry values focus on profit first–even if many researchers have been taught to value the science by universities first.

Diagram from James A. Severson, Ph.D., of Veratect Corporation, Kirkland, WA

Industry prefers to restrict use of its technologies to those explicitly licensed—and such licensees generally must pay for the privilege of their use. Methods and materials are kept close, as trade secrets, unless licensed out for approved use. Competitors must be kept from access to preserve corporate profits. Universities, on the other hand, have generally taken a much broader approach to technology use and sharing. Researchers in universities must “publish or perish,” and getting describing methods and approaches garners a researcher the most benefit when readership is broad. One-upping academic competitors is still a key goal, but the method is through demonstration and publishing successes, not through profit-making and market dominance.

The Bayh-Dole Act attempted to bridge the divide, and technology transfer offices are the means of its implementation. Prior to Bayh-Dole, “legislators were concerned that for a variety of reasons, the government”–formerly the federal government owned the research it funded–“had proved ineffective as a shepherd of the inventions created with federal research dollars” (see Open Source, Open Access, and Open Transfer: Market Approaches to Research Bottlenecks). By many measures, the results have been phenomenal: at the end of fiscal year 2009, UCSD alone had more than 400 licenses active around the world, with a steady increase since 2000. Also in 2009, UCSD’s technology transfer office distributed more than fifteen million dollars to inventors ($9 million), joint titleholders ($432 thousand) research labs and departments ($2.5 million), and the UC general fund ($2.5 million).

All the money suggests some obvious problems created by the “intrusion” of a neoliberal, market-focused approach into the “ivory tower” university environment (assuming such pure extremes ever existed). For a cash-strapped state government like California’s, why not emphasize this market-connected activity and turn universities into self-supporting institutions? Such an approach risks compromising the university focus of basic research and–perhaps even more importantly–ignores the less commodifiable teaching and research done at such institutions, especially in the humanities. Even within the sciences, forcing research to fit into license agreements and patent arrangements may impede the flow of data, slow down innovation by restricting information sharing, and, ultimately, force university researchers away from basic sciences that form the core of future applications.

Related articles

• Technology Transfer and the Third Way (kfwhite.wordpress.com)
• Columbia University’s Tech Transfer Guru, Orin Herskowitz, on Turning IT, Biotech, and Cleantech Ideas Into Businesses (xconomy.com)

Related articles

• An argument for the “Inviolability of Telegraphic Correspondence” (inpropriapersona.com)
• The slow pace of Fourth Amendment change (inpropriapersona.com)
• The Fourth Amendment: from property to people (inpropriapersona.com)

Image by Jeffrey Keefer via Flickr

There are many (non-exclusive) reasons to blog: money, fame, narcissism, SEO, product placement and advertising, journaling, self-discovery, passion… The specific reasons for blogging are as varied as bloggers themselves, and arguments about whether one should be blogging at all are equally diverse, especially since so many bloggers give up in frustration because their audience is so small. But a small audience is only a problem for certain kinds of blogging, of course, most especially blogging for dollars (or euros, shekels, or pounds).

As someone who does not blog to earn money (I like to pay my hosting fees, but that’s only because I’m a poor grad student), I thought I’d run through how and why I blog, and why I find it a critical part of my “real” work of academic research and writing. (If you are looking for how to make money blogging, there are better sources out there.)

Why I Blog

I blog primarily for three reasons, in increasing order of importance: (1) to give me a visible presence on the Internet for my (potential) colleagues and students to see my work;  (2) to get feedback, not all of it visible on my blog; (3) to capture interesting and potentially fruitful Internet finds (i.e., as part of my research–which is mostly online anyway these days); and (4) as a rough-draft medium that I can draw on when eventually need to actually produce a piece of writing.

(Oh yes, and because I enjoy it.)

Like many personal bloggers, I sometimes use my blog to capture interesting finds. More often, I try to integrate this with my primary purpose, and turn my research immediately into writing by creating short articles about my finds. That way I have ready-made rough-draft material to work from when I go to write. For those who may primarily focus on this purpose, a so-called “tumblelog” like Tumblr or Posterous (both of which I use from time to time) may be the ideal blogging service.

Making myself visible on the Internet may be a form of vanity, but it’s increasingly important to “brand” oneself today. I want colleagues, students, employers, etc. to be able to find me and get insight into my professional persona easily, and I want them to see what I produce. It also helps connect me to various larger communities, including academics, other bloggers, lawyers, and so on. It’s a networking tool that doesn’t need to be awkward or self-aggrandizing.

Feedback is useful, though comments may or may not be. Sometimes this comes in the form of blog comments, sometime in terms of email, and more often it gives me a medium in which to share my drafts with “real-life” colleagues. The more readers you have, of course, the more feedback you might potentially get–but that isn’t my primary purpose, so I don’t care so much about raw numbers of visitors.

How I Blog

My most important reason for blogging (use as a rough-draft medium) has developed into the primary driver of my methodology. So, while I do sometimes simply capture the barest details about new publications or interesting articles, more often I use other tools for that purpose: Google Reader or TBUZZ to Twitter to Delicious via Packrati.us and Pinboard, or Read It Later or Instapaper.

I’ve realized, though, that simply capturing lots of small amounts of information in the blog medium is less useful for me than writing fewer, longer write-ups. Spending more time on each potential source, writing up a more detailed and in-depth analysis or reflection provides me with effective, highly useful material when I need to write an article later.

Image by krisnelson via Flickr

This kind of writing is in-between the quick summaries or reactions of Twitter or a tumblelog, but less detailed, analytic, or proof-read than a true article. These are more like the “reflection” assignments I give my undergraduates, and are intended not so much for consumption by others as they are to capture analytic ideas and details that may help me later. The focus is not on perfection, which makes writing them easier, but I do try to have an audience beyond myself in mind, which vastly increases their reusability.

What does this look like? Try posts like the following–none are perfect, but they’ve all proved useful later:

• Judge Noble Hand hints at the move from property to people
• An argument for the “Inviolability of Telegraphic Correspondence”
• Smallpox inoculation and quarantine in colonial America

Obviously, this approach is not right for everyone, but for anyone who needs to produce written work (that doesn’t need to be secret!), it’s wonderful, practical, and (relatively) easy.

Conclusion

So there you go. I blog mostly so I don’t have to stare at a blank page later, and to a lesser extent so that I can be found online. (Also I like tech.) If you do decide to blog, I highly recommend you think about the why and the how for yourself.

Related articles

• 10 Reasons for a Law Student to Blog (inpropriapersona.com)
• Friday Question: Why do you blog? (worldmomsblog.com)
• Writing For Blogs — Style, Strategy, Voice: Webinar recording now available (kevin.lexblog.com)

Image by plenty.r. via Flickr

In Protections for Electronic Communications: the Stored Communications Act and the Fourth Amendment, Alexander Scolnik wrote:

As technology evolves, giving individuals new forms of communicating and government agents increasingly sophisticated tools for surveillance, courts have had to continually interpret the Fourth Amendment and define the extent of its reach in light of these new advances.

He also noted that even Justice Antonin Scalia, who tends to like strict originalist interpretations, has suggested that the Fourth Amendment requires flexible interpretation.

There have been several extensions of the Fourth Amendment to deal with new technologies, but Constitutional protections have not come quickly.

First, the postal service: Established by Benjamin Franklin in 1775, official postal mail did not receive Fourth Amendment protection until ex parte Jackson in 1878, more than a hundred years later.

Second, the telegraph: In 1844, Samuel Morse transmitted the America’s first telegram (“What hath God wrought”), but despite arguments that telegrams deserved protection (see, for example, Thomas M. Cooley’s 1879 Inviolability of Telegraphic Correspondence ) the courts have never explicitly granted such protection to telegrams. In essence, technology (in the form of the telephone) made the legal issue moot.

Third, the telephone: Alexander Graham Bell obtained a patent in 1876 on “an apparatus for transmitting vocal or other sounds telegraphically.” In Olmstead (1928), the Court refused to extend Fourth Amendment protections to the telephone, then changed its mind in 1967, nearly a century after Bell’s patent.

Fourth, electronic mail: SDC and MIT had an early form of email in 1965, with the “@” sign being added to ARPANET’s early system around 1969. Forty-some years later, the Sixth Circuit, in Warshak, has suggested that stored email has Fourth Amendment protections, but the Supreme Court has yet to rule.

So, yes, courts have continually interpreted/extended the Fourth Amendment, but it hasn’t been quick!

Related articles

• The Fourth Amendment: from property to people (inpropriapersona.com)