In Cathy Davidson’s, “Project Classroom Makeover”, Davidson analyzes and elucidates upon faults she observes in the American education system. In particular, Davidson introduces her own experiment, the iPod experiment, in which she distributes free iPods to all first-year Duke University students and all other Duke University students who have the iPod incorporated in at least one of their classes. Through the experiment, the iPod upgraded itself by having its learning experience enhanced. Similarly, in Jonathan Lethem’s, “The Ecstasy of Influence: A Plagiarism”, Lethem argues that individuals who have successful ideas should allow up-and-coming artists to use their ideas and build on it to make a unique, albeit heavily inspired, invention.
…show more content…
Therefore, everything. that would be considered a commons to Lethem, was available to the students to play and experiment with. According to Lethem, if an item belonged between people, such as the iPod’s physical properties and the iPod’s software, the item could be used as inspiration to make new, improved inventions. As said previously, the iPod’s ability to help medical students and music majors was later converted to apps for the present-day smartphones. Additionally, “the iPod could still remain an iPod with its own distinctive characteristics, but it could change and morph as new features were added and new capabilities emerged” (Davidson 53). Today, individuals may take the iPhone for granted, without realizing that if Apple was like the Walt Disney Company by keeping its most precious and valuable secrets away from others, then all present smartphones would most likely be a few generations behind. In this alternate reality of Apple hiding its secrets like Disney, somebody would eventually invent a device that would be similar, but inferior, to current smartphones. Therefore, individuals today should be grateful for the benefits that came from Apple’s noble task to make the world culturally larger. Apple could have easily hid their secrets away to make a “usemonopoly” on the iPod, which would enable apple to sue any individual from using the “intellectual property” of the iPod (Lethem 217). In his essay, Lethem argues that when a successful company sues other individuals for using the intellectual property of their product, the company has a usemonopoly on the product. First of all, the intellectual property of an item must be considered part of a commons, and therefore nullifying the idea of a usemonopoly. In fact,
Therefore, everything. that would be considered a commons to Lethem, was available to the students to play and experiment with. According to Lethem, if an item belonged between people, such as the iPod’s physical properties and the iPod’s software, the item could be used as inspiration to make new, improved inventions. As said previously, the iPod’s ability to help medical students and music majors was later converted to apps for the present-day smartphones. Additionally, “the iPod could still remain an iPod with its own distinctive characteristics, but it could change and morph as new features were added and new capabilities emerged” (Davidson 53). Today, individuals may take the iPhone for granted, without realizing that if Apple was like the Walt Disney Company by keeping its most precious and valuable secrets away from others, then all present smartphones would most likely be a few generations behind. In this alternate reality of Apple hiding its secrets like Disney, somebody would eventually invent a device that would be similar, but inferior, to current smartphones. Therefore, individuals today should be grateful for the benefits that came from Apple’s noble task to make the world culturally larger. Apple could have easily hid their secrets away to make a “usemonopoly” on the iPod, which would enable apple to sue any individual from using the “intellectual property” of the iPod (Lethem 217). In his essay, Lethem argues that when a successful company sues other individuals for using the intellectual property of their product, the company has a usemonopoly on the product. First of all, the intellectual property of an item must be considered part of a commons, and therefore nullifying the idea of a usemonopoly. In fact,