Two interesting bits from Techdirt.com. First is this about the perceived need to patent everything. The second is this about 3D printing being used for real manufacturing, not just proto-typing. Together, they frame the property issues of the digital age. Technology is providing the tools for everyone to control the means of production, be it intellectual goods or, now, physical goods. Against this, the government is trying to package the ideas, through patents, copyrights and enabling legislation, to maintain a definition of property.

It raises interesting issues about the political economy. Traditionally, the technological constraints on making stuff allowed the maker a level of control over the distribution of the stuff, and therefore allowed the maker to be compensated for the value add. In simplistic terms, only Picasso could make a Picasso. Now if technology allows everyone to become a maker, then where in the process does the originator add value? How does the designer get compensated for the instructions that run the 3D printer? What happens to the economy when making is no longer a part of the financial equation because the market disappears?

The immediate scenario that comes to mind is an economic oligarchy controlling resourses needed to feed the printers combined with an intrusive policing of the use of instructions supported by a centralized authoritarian regime. Hopefully another scenario comes to fruition.