- - - - - - - - - -

T A B L E__T A L K

Can online discussion actually change people's minds -- or does it just dig us deeper into argumentative positions? Come debate in Table Talk's Digital Culture area.

- - - - - - - - - -

Technocracy in America
By Andrew Leonard
A review of "Endless Frontier: Vannevar Bush, Engineer of the American Century" by G. Pascal Zachary
(12/08/97)

The 21st Challenge
By Charlie Varon and Jim Rosenau
Take the 21st Challenge: Rename software! Win prizes!
(12/05/97)

Let's get this straight
By Scott Rosenberg
Kiddie porn -- the enemy everyone can agree on
(12/04/97)

Interface this!
By Scott Rosenberg
A review of Steven Johnson's sharp critical manifesto, "Interface Culture"
(12/03/97)

Are we ready for the library of the future?
By Cate Corcoran
Librarians have become the public's last-resort help desk
(12/02/97)

- - - - - - - - - -

BROWSE THE
21ST ARCHIVES

- - - - - - - - - -

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Isn't that a function of the sheer volume of money he's accumulated?

No, it's a function of the sheer volume of obsession with him. It's their obsession with him, it's not him.

At the same time that the Net is reducing the value of intellectual property there's a counter-move to lock it up: Gates acquiring the rights to thousands of images for his company Corbis, or the entertainment industry trying to stop the recording of music CDs.

And owning the intellectual property isn't bad. The only question is, how do you exploit it? And the way you exploit it sometimes is selling copies of it or experiences of it, but a lot of the time it's other ways -- doing co-sponsorships with Burger King, or giving a book away for free so you can jack up your consulting rates.

The point I'm trying to make is not that intellectual property is valueless, but that the price of copies is going down dramatically, so you need to think of other ways to exploit the content. And a creator is now in a much better position than a publisher. The publisher's model is being attacked -- on the one side by Amazon.com, which is making the whole book business more efficient, and on the other by people who are creating content that markets itself. While some people are spending big bucks in marketing budgets to get people to buy content, other people are just putting the content out and it markets itself -- and it takes people's time away from the stuff that gets marketed to them.

One of the big principles you subscribe to in "Release 2.0" is the importance of full disclosure. Markets need good information to work properly. Yet you're working in an industry that uses "non-disclosure agreements" as a routine legal tool. Now they're even an issue in the Department of Justice's battle with Microsoft.

I sign NDAs and observe them because I think that's the honorable thing to do. I don't think they're immoral; I think often they're stupid. Because nine times out of 10 it's a much bigger problem getting people to take your idea seriously than getting them not to steal it. But I also think there's a difference between a small non-disclosure agreement and an NDA about a contract with a large company that has huge market power. The propriety of these things really does vary according to the market power of the people involved.

Technology companies have a hybrid psychology, with vestiges of the old macho corporate culture but also commitments to openness. Sometimes it seems companies are stuck selling products they claim are all about individual empowerment and open networks, and then they realize, wait, do we have to do this stuff ourselves?

It's very easy to sit and talk about this. People are imperfect and they don't like to be reminded of their flaws. But the Net forces you to confront them more, and I think that's good.

How? Because you're on public display?

You know that habit some men have of combing their hair over their bald spots? And everybody knows there's a bald spot there -- yet they think they're hiding it. And so, in the same way, when people talk about you on the Net, you can see it. When they talk about you at a cocktail party, you can't. It's uncomfortable to get used to -- and there are gonna be some people who won't ever look.

I screwed up on "Charlie Rose" last week -- there was a long silence when I was asked after the smartest people I knew, what about women? and I finally answered with the name of a businesswoman. And so there was an "Esther Dyson pisses me off" party in New York last night, that I saw an invitation to on the Net. No, it's not fun for me to see that -- but it's probably better for me to see it than not to see it. You know, these little eddies of contrary opinion become tangible -- and then they dissipate. But they're there and they're useful, if you take heed. They're useful for individuals, they're useful for companies.

Where do you come down in the Microsoft/Department of Justice dispute?

I have no problem with a browser being part of the operating system, I think it makes sense technically. All these things happen over time. I do have a problem with secret contracts when they're engaged in by people with monumental market power -- and in this context the relevant market share figure to look at is the 80 percent of the desktop Microsoft controls, not the 36 percent of the browser market. I certainly think that Microsoft has every right to put the browser in the operating system, but both OEM customers [computer manufacturers] and end users have every right to take it out. What that challenges people to do is to build components that can flip in easily. Now that's where the world breaks down, and the promise of "friction-free markets" doesn't quite work. Because let's face it, it's easier if you're over the wall with the Microsoft developers to make your thing work seamlessly.

Gates' response is that if computer manufacturers can take the browser out, he can't guarantee everything will work together.

You know, if all of Microsoft's tools worked together perfectly in the first place, that would be a more compelling argument. I'm having lots of fun with my WinIP config file right now. Didn't even know it existed a month ago, now it's an important part of my life.

In an interview a year or two ago you said you weren't using Windows 95.

But I am now. We all progress. I used Word to write the book. The thing that annoys me most is the smart formatting -- it keeps doing things that I didn't ask it to do. That's when I get anthropomorphic about my software: Stop it! Stop it! Don't be so smart. But for writing long texts it's pretty good. There was one file that kept crashing the machine. I sent it to [Microsoft chief technology officer] Nathan Myhrvold, and they couldn't find anything wrong. I'd just open the file and it would crash. It was the chapter on governance, for what it was worth.

With the Cold War over, most Americans seem to be paying no attention at all to Russia, but you've dedicated much of your work to tracking and helping build the high-tech industry there. What's happening in Russia that we need to know about?

Right now, I'm optimistic about it, just as I'm optimistic about the Net -- with perhaps not sufficient evidence to make the case. Russia really hangs in the balance. It's not going to go back to communism, but it's definitely not guaranteed that it's going to go forward to freedom, democracy, open markets. And that's exactly why I'm there. If it were decided, why bother? But if there's some question as to what will happen, you've got to be there. Both the Internet and Russia are two of the biggest questions for the future. And to the extent that I have influence on the outcome, how could I go relax on a beach?

The interesting thing about Russia is that this small group of people in the software community had intellectual assets of their own -- they never had to acquire anything from the state through whatever means. They're honest, they're to some extent globally minded, they see the Net as a miracle that connects them to the rest of the world they so much want to be part of, they're getting good salaries so they can afford to pay other people and trickle a little down through the economy, they're educating their children. They're this growing organism in basically a pile of decaying machinery and dirt and scum.