_ders_ (New York: Times Books/Random House, 1997), 38-61 (describing Apple's internal
licensing debate).

[6-20] Baldwin and Clark, 11. In Baldwin and Clark's terms, modularity describes an
"interdependence within and independence across modules." Carliss Y. Baldwin and
Kim B. Clark, _Design_Rules,_ vol. 1 (Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press, 2000), 63. Modules
are units "whose structural elements are powerfully connected among themselves and
relatively weakly connected to elements in other units." They thus depend upon "a
framework -- and architecture -- that allows for both independence of structure and inte-
gration of function." Ibid.

"Architecture" is thus fundamental to all modular systems. As Baldwin and Clark de-
scribe, "[T]he word is both an evocative term with a rich set of associations, and a tech-
nical term, meant to have a precise meaning in a particular context." Ibid., 215. A proper
architecture enables parts to be broken into smaller units, with clean and clear interfaces
among the smaller modules.

Baldwin and Clark thus advance four "principles of modularity": (1) Create nested,
regular, hierarchical structures in a complex system; (2) define independent compo-
nents within an integrated architecture; (3) establish and maintain rigorous partitions of
design information into hidden and visible subsets; (4) invest in clear interfaces and
"good" module tests. Ibid., 413. These together "made it possible for human beings of
individually limited capacity to design and produce ever more complex machines and
programs. [T]he resulting modular designs could change in unpredicted, yet coordi-
nated ways. They could be improved via a decentralized, value-seeking process, which
we have called _design_evolution._" Ibid.

[6-21] See Michael Walzer, _Spheres_of_Justice:_A_Defense_of_Pluralism_and_Equality_ (New
York: Basic Books, 1984).

[6-22] See, e.g., Margaret Jane Radin, _Contested_Commodities_ (Cambridge, Mass.: Har-
vard University Press, 1996), 132-136.

[6-23] Letter from Thomas Jefferson to Isaac McPherson (August 13, 1813), in _The_Writ-_
_ings_of_Thomas_Jefferson_ 6 (H. A. Washington, ed., 1861), 175, 180.

[6-24] Rose, "The Comedy of the Commons," 742.

[6-25] Some researchers have suggested that there is a way of organizing access to
spectrum that would increase the spectrum as the number of users increases. See
Timothy J. Shepard, "A Channel Access Scheme for Large Dense Packet Radio Networks,"
at http://www.acm.org/pubs/articles/proceedings/comm/248156/p219-shepard/
p219-shepard.pdf. See also Rick Boyd-Merritt, "Engineer's Wireless Internet in a Box
Draws Interest," EE Times.com, http://www.eetimes.com/story/OEG19981007S0014.

[6-26] The term is of recent origin. Professor Fisher traces its origins to the late nineteenth
century; William W. Fisher III, "The Growth of Intellectual Property: A History of the
Ownership of Ideas in the United States" (1999) 2, 8, available at http://cyber.law.
harvard.edu/ipcoop/97fish.1.html. The term appears to have been used twice before
1900; _Mitchell_ v. _Tilghman,_ 86 U.S. 287 (1873) and _Davoll_ v. _Brown,_ 7 Fed. Cas. 197
(Cir. Ct., D. Mass. 1845). These early usages were essentially translations of European
documents, except for _Davoll,_ where the court uses the term in exactly its modern sense:

____ Only thus can ingenuity and perseverance be encouraged to exert themselves in this way
____ usefully to the community; and only in this way can we protect intellectual property, the
____ labors of the mind, productions and interests as much a man's own, and as much the fruit
____ of his honest industry, as the wheat he cultivates, or the flocks he rears.

[[293]]

p292 _ -chap- _ toc-1 _ p293w _ toc-2 _ +chap+ _ p294

v?