I think there are many more interesting implications of cheap-ass, automated, and decentralized manufacturing in general than just in IP. (3-d printing, downloadable and version controlled CNC instruction sets, parts supply chains on the internet, etc.) There will be lots more custom/ private work, there will be pseudo socialist challenges to the big guys who control manufacturing (in the same way that open source software is a bid to take control of software production), there will be revolutions in logistics, and we will see lots of interesting designs created outside the for-profit + mass distribution model.
There will be lots of lawyers, unfortunately.
I think we will also see the encoding of old designs first, just as Linux and BSD and GNU started as fairly traditional designs (and personally, if I were to download any car I could choose, it would be a 1977 Volvo 244).
And in 20 years, the best designs will be the open designs, just like the best software today is rapidly being defined by OSS, for many of the same reasons (i.e. no small minded MBA's getting involved in technical shit they will never be able to understand).
Amish technology will be really important in the process of shifting to open manufacturing (somewhat ironically) since their designs are complex but not crazy, and they appeal to the same DIY hippies as OSS does (I count myself in that bunch).
I also think an open source bicycle is the place to start, not a car, since it is simple but still challenging.
Interesting rant. I do not think that 3-D printing is going to play much of a part, though. You mention an open-source bicycle; this is a good illustration of the problem.
The bicycle I rode to work today has:
- a frame made of heat-treated steel tubes brazed together
- wheels made of extruded aluminium and stainless-steel wire
- rubber tyres
... not to mention all the other bits and pieces; machined hubs, ball-bearings, etc etc.
I would be impressed at a 3-D printer that could produce any one of these things at a reasonable price, let alone all three. Small scale manufacturing of bicycle parts is confined to high-value niche areas.
I'm afraid I don't see much evidence of decentralised manufacturing here in .au, apart from offshoring, which I doubt has much to do with the sort of open manufacturing you seem to have in mind. I imagine things are the same in most Western economies, although I freely admit this is no more than speculation.
Well there's your problem. The point isn't to exactly recreate what we have today. The bike as you own it now is like it is because that's the easiest way to manufacture - rather than stamping it out of a block of steel, they take a couple of tubes and weld them together. If it's easier to 3d-print by making the whole thing in plastic, we'll have to engineer materials that allow this and still maintain enough function to be used like today's bike.
Innovation doesn't have to be constrained by today's standards. The Wright brothers didn't have to replicate the flapping wings of a bird, just building something that would fly was ok.
You install the software on the server and the terminal makes a connection to the server; the terminal is only an input/output machine.
2. Smart server, smart terminal
You can install the software on the terminal itself and run the software locally. (A desktop application) You can install the software on the server and the terminal makes a connection to the server; the terminal acting as an input/output machine. (A traditional web site with POST requests) You can also install software to the server and the terminal downloads a copy of the software to be run locally, downloading data from the server as needed. (A 'web 2.0' web site or an app downloaded from an app store.)
The possible two phases of manufacturing:
1. Production at the factory, Consumption at the home
The factory produces the goods and the goods are delivered to the home to be consumed.
2. Production at the factory, Production at the home
The factory produces the machines for producing consumables, and the machines are delivered to the home to produce whatever the home requires.
Computers were one of the first "systems" to become decentralized. I believe it is only a matter of time before other systems, such as factories, become decentralized too.
Not to mention that, for the foreseeable future, the end result of a homemade bike (for all but the most skilled) would probably be below the standard of the cheap products you could get outside of specialty bike stores anyway. Are the prosumers/dedicated-types riding those now? Not really.
That said, I suspect DIYers, innovators, etc will find a way to make it work regardless, even if it means starting very simply with parts or things like crockery, glassware, basic construction, etc.
The predictions the article hints at especially in the conclusion are the predictions of Marx. Decentralized, low-cost, self-replicating, manufacturing robots are one of the most disruptive technologies are economy will ever face. The means of production will be in the hands of all individuals and the economy will evolve into a completely different state than today's service economy. An economic evolution from agrarian -> manufacturing -> service -> techno-marxism. Economies will naturally evolve to the point where producer and the worker are indistinguishable from one another.
(This is in no way shape or form a post supporting leninism\communism\maoism. There is no way to skip the prerequisite steps of economic evolution and technological development through prescriptive action)
Marx was right about a lot of things. The only reason America didn't have a Marxist revolution, is that our democratic government implemented tons of socialist regulations (minimum wage, maximum hours per work week without overtime pay, etc.). Germany didn't have that option at the time, which is why Marx had to predict violent overthrows. America can have revolutions on the same scale, but working within the law and without resorting to violence.
I imagine the economy will goes overdrive in drilling for oils and raw materials(to supply the printers), building really big things and things that are bigger than individual production size, as well as "novelty" projects like space exploration. This is because the economy will need less large scale factories dedicated to producing what can already be printed and easily designed and improved and instead allocate resource to challenges that are impressively hard and interesting.
I think there are many more interesting implications of cheap-ass, automated, and decentralized manufacturing in general than just in IP. (3-d printing, downloadable and version controlled CNC instruction sets, parts supply chains on the internet, etc.) There will be lots more custom/ private work, there will be pseudo socialist challenges to the big guys who control manufacturing (in the same way that open source software is a bid to take control of software production), there will be revolutions in logistics, and we will see lots of interesting designs created outside the for-profit + mass distribution model.
There will be lots of lawyers, unfortunately.
I think we will also see the encoding of old designs first, just as Linux and BSD and GNU started as fairly traditional designs (and personally, if I were to download any car I could choose, it would be a 1977 Volvo 244).
And in 20 years, the best designs will be the open designs, just like the best software today is rapidly being defined by OSS, for many of the same reasons (i.e. no small minded MBA's getting involved in technical shit they will never be able to understand).
Amish technology will be really important in the process of shifting to open manufacturing (somewhat ironically) since their designs are complex but not crazy, and they appeal to the same DIY hippies as OSS does (I count myself in that bunch).
I also think an open source bicycle is the place to start, not a car, since it is simple but still challenging.
I think about this way too much, actually.