3D Printing and Permissionless Innovation (Adam Thierer March 2016)

transcript

3D Printing & “Permissionless Innovation”

Adam ThiererSenior Research FellowMercatus Center at George Mason University

March 2016

Presentation based on Mercatus book & research

Permissionless Innovation: The Continuing Case for Comprehensive

Technological Freedom

www.permissionlessinnovation.org

Virtual / Aug. Reality

Future Tech Flashpoints

3-D Printing & Add. Manuf.

RoboticsSmart cars

Private dronesA.I.

Sharing Economy

CryptoBitcoin

Dark markets

Advanced Medical Tech.

Medical DevicesBiohacking

EmbeddablesGenetic issues

Mobile medical appsTelemedicine

Internet of Things

Wearable TechSmart HomesSmart Cities

Which Innovation Policy “Vision” ShouldGovern the Future of 3D Printing?

Permissionless Innovation or Precautionary Principle?

“Permissionless Innovation”

= the general freedom to experiment & learn through trial-and-error.

– Be open to change, disruption, risk-taking & especially the possibility of failure.

– Avoid prior restraint.– Seek less restrictive alternatives to problems.

• The U.S. embraced this ethos & made it the basis of policy for the digital economy in the 1990s and beyond.

In the old days, the Internet was “permissioned” (pre-1990s)

This warning to students appeared in a 1982 MIT handbook for the use of ARPAnet, the progenitor of what would become the Internet:

“It is considered illegal to use the ARPAnet for anything which is not in direct support of government business... Sending electronic mail over the ARPAnet for commercial profit or political purposes is both anti-social and illegal. By sending such messages, you can offend many people, and it is possible to get MIT in serious trouble with the government agencies which manage the ARPAnet.”

What Changed? We opened the Net & digital revolution took off

• early 1990s: commercial opening of the Net• 1997: Clinton admin. adopted “light touch” approach with

the Framework for Global Electronic Commerce (1997)1. “the private sector should lead. The Internet should develop as a

market driven arena not a regulated industry.”2. “governments should avoid undue restrictions on electronic

commerce” & “parties should be able to enter into legitimate agreements to buy and sell products and services across the Internet with minimal government involvement or intervention.”

3. “where governmental involvement is needed,” the Framework continued, “its aim should be to support and enforce a predictable, minimalist, consistent and simple legal environment for commerce.”

The rest is history• Permissionless innovation has driven the

explosion of Internet entreprenuerialism over past 2 decades.

• Nobody needed a license or permission to launch the great technological innovations of the digital age.

• Became a powerful driver of U.S. tech competitiveness.

How Did All This

Develop So Quickly?

How Did U.S. Become Global Digital Innovation Leader?

10Source: Booz & Company

• 9 of the top 10 most innovative global companies are based in U.S.

• Majority are involved in computing, software & digital technology

Where Are Europe’s Tech Innovators?

How Did This US-EU Tech Imbalance Develop?

Source: Alberto Onetti, Mind the Bridge Foundation

US-EU Tech Imbalance (cont.)

• Facebook’s market cap is twice as large as every billion dollar tech company in Europe combined.

• Airbnb is larger than all of Germany’s

How Can Consumers Have Access to All These at This Price!

But What about the Risks? (or, Why Some Still Favor

“Precautionary Principle” Policies)

The “Precautionary Principle”

= Crafting public policies to control or limit new innovations until their creators can prove that they won’t cause any harms.

– “better to be safe than sorry” mentality – preemptive regulation– it is the antithesis of permissionless innovation

1. Privacy / Psychological • reputation issues, fear of “profiling” & “discrimination”• amorphous psychological / cognitive harms

2. Safety • Health & physical safety, child safety

3. Security • Hacking, cybersecurity, law enforcement issues

4. Economic • Automation, job dislocation, sectoral disruptions

5. Intellectual Property

Concerns Driving Calls for Precautionary Tech Regulation

The Conflict of Visions over Innovation Policy

Precautionary Principle

Permissionless Innovation

Innovation must be carefully guided should be free-wheeling

Priority Stability / equilibrium Spontaneity / experimentation

Risk risk anticipation is preferred risk adaptation is preferred

Solutions Preemptive (ex ante)top-down controls/solutions

Reactive (ex post)bottom-up remedies

Presumption Innovators must ask, “Mother, May I?”

Innovators are “innocent until proven guilty”

Ethos “Better to be safe than sorry” “Nothing ventured, nothing gained”

The Precautionary Principle vs. Permissionless InnovationA Range of Responses to Technological Risk

ProhibitionCensorship

Info suppression Product bans

Anticipatory Regulation

Administrative mandatesRestrictive defaults Licensing & permitsIndustry guidance

ResiliencyEducation & Media Literacy

Labeling / TransparencyUser empowerment

Self-regulation

AdaptationExperience / Experiments

Learning / CopingSocial norms & pressure

Top-down Solutions

Bottom-up Solutions

General problem with“permissioning” innovation

If we spend all our time living in constant fear of worst-case scenarios—and premising public

policy upon such fears—it means that best-case scenarios will never come about.

Wisdom and progress are born from experience, including experiences that involve risk and the possibility of occasional mistakes and failures.

When Does Precaution Make Sense?

… but most 3D printing cases aren’t like this.

What’s good for cyberspace is good for meatspace

We need same general policy approach to other sectors and technologies,

whether based on bits (digital economy) or atoms (industrial economy).

Our policy default should be Innovation Allowed

… and that includes 3D printing!

But again, what about potential risks?

1. Privacy / Psychological 2. Safety 3. Security 4. Economic 5. Intellectual Property

Recall the Concerns Driving Calls for Precautionary Tech Regulation

Key Policy Issues for

3D Printing

Policy Case Studies

Firearms

Toys & Sculptures Medical devices

Regulation could prove challenging

How to control 3D-printed guns, medical devices, and reproductions? • Regulate blueprints? (Speech controls are

hard & raise First Amendment issues)• License devices? (General-purpose tech hard

to control + already too diffuse?)• Control inputs? (It’s plastics and glue!)

What would a permissionless innovation policy for 3D printing look like?

Permissionless Innovation Policy Blueprint1. Articulate and defend permissionless innovation as the general policy

default.2. Identify and remove barriers to entry and innovation.3. Protect freedom of speech and expression.4. Retain and expand immunities for intermediaries from liability associated

with third-party uses.5. Rely on existing legal solutions and the common law to solve problems.6. Wait for insurance markets and competitive responses to develop.7. Push for industry self-regulation and best practices.8. Promote education and empowerment solutions and be patient as social

norms evolve to solve challenges.9. Adopt targeted, limited legal measures for truly hard problems.10.Evaluate and reevaluate policy decisions to ensure they pass a strict

benefit-cost analysis.

Do we need a “Section 230 for the Maker Movement”?

• excessive litigation can have chilling effect on life-enriching innovation

• might need to immunize some platform providers (ex: Shapeways or Thingiverse) or device manufacturers from punishing forms of liability

• they should be immunized from liability associated with the ways third-parties use their platforms or devices to speak, experiment, or innovate

Three Immunity Models

• Section 230 (47 U.S.C. § 230) • Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act of

2005 • National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986

(The National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program)

Education & best practices will become essential

• Are we talking to innovators (and our kids) about responsible uses of 3D printing?

• “Digital citizenship” & risk education efforts needed• private codes of conduct or “best practice” guidance

for developers – third-party certification and accreditation of devices or

their standards?– corporate labeling and transparency efforts?– consumer education