innovation
‘Every time we lower the cost of scientific research, good things happen. More scientific
information and more accurate information gets to more researchers faster’
cures for because there aren’t enough people who suffer from them,” he says. “Lowering the cost of scientific research can’t solve all of those problems. It can’t solve the problems of developing anti-parasite medicines for the global poor. But it can lower the margin of cost that we have to pay. If we did for science what we learned fromthe web, I actually think we would revolutionise scientific dis- covery. In the areas where we’ve tried this, we have seen extraordinary development.” The biggest obstacle to overcome, as Boyle sees it, is
people’s collective fear of openness, which he calls cul- tural agoraphobia. This often acts as a roadblock to innovation. “We have a cognitive bias that leads us to underestimate the benefits and overestimate the fail- ures of open systems. That doesn’t mean open is always right; it’s not. Lots of times we need control, we need authentication, we need privacy controls, we need intel- lectual property. But the point is, we are systematically bad at figuring how this will play out,” he insists. “One of the great insights about the world of the web
that I’ve learned is, if there are a billion connected peo- ple, at least one of them has a smarter idea about what to do with your information than you do. And that should be a happy thought, not a sad thought.”
IP and innovation Another of Boyle’s pet subjects is how the intellectual property system in its current form holds back innova- tion. Here again, he is rational rather than ranting. His background in Science Commons makes him advocate lowering unnecessary barriers, not simply setting every- thing free. He has no issue with patents, particularly to protect organisations that have invested heavily in developing a process or technology. On the other hand, he is against protecting intellectual property so strin- gently that it strangles subsequent innovation. “When search engines started on the worldwide web,
there was a very credible argument that they were illegal because they were copying the entire web without asking for permission,” he points out. A combination of technical protocols, fair-use rulings and copyright directives cir- cumvented this particular problem, “and there was a com- pany that did quite well from that,” Boyle smiles. He credits the legal system for not always being so
entrenched in an old mindset. “It was partly that the technology moved fast enough that people realised what we would lose if we applied the old laws. It’s a bit like the position at the start of commercial air travel. The orig- inal position of the landowners was ‘you can’t do that, it’s our property’ and property extends up into space, right? Until the courts looked at it and thought: you know what, in theory you’re right but that would be really stupid. There would have to be limitations on your property. You’re not really losing anything here, it’s a technological accident that this thing passes over it. “What we need are the limitations and flexibilities that
continue the incentives and so forth but they don’t give the copyright owner a veto over technological development – particularly disruptive technological development. That’s like giving the people who control the whale oil industry control over the electric light industry. That’s not going to be a good way of regulating things.” Boyle accepts the pace of technological development
frequently leaves the law in its slipstream, but he doesn’t accept the portrayal of the legal sector trying to hold back rapid progress. “I actually think in many ways you could argue that the legal system in different countries, cer- tainly in the US, has made some really inspired bets. The Sony decision in the Seventies and Eighties in the US [US Supreme Court, Universal v Sony, 1976-1984] actually set a rule which said: if your device has a substantial non- infringing use you can’t say that it’s illegal. People can use VCRs to do illegal things but that doesn’t make VCRs illegal. That rule made the thing you’re holding possible,” he says, pointing to the iPhone that I am using – appro- priately, as it turns out – to record our interview. “You could say ‘people are going to misuse this, people
are going to take pictures of movies or concerts’. The rule is substantial non-infringing use.We’re going to let the technology flourish and we’re not going to stop you. So the legal system gets out ahead.” Or to put it another way, Boyle’s vision is that researchers should be free to build the proverbial better mousetrap without worrying that the first people beat- ing a path to their door will be intellectual property lawyers. He doesn’t think his suggestion solves the IP problem entirely, but he is upbeat that progress will find a way. “Though I’m Scottish, I’m an optimist,” he says.
Summer 2011 Irish Director 45
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56 |
Page 57 |
Page 58 |
Page 59 |
Page 60 |
Page 61 |
Page 62 |
Page 63 |
Page 64 |
Page 65 |
Page 66 |
Page 67 |
Page 68 |
Page 69 |
Page 70 |
Page 71 |
Page 72