I've been having a silent panic attack for the last 3 days, and I don't really have anyone to talk to that would understand my concern.
I run a small pro audio company, we make guitar pedals and audio effects mostly. My current key objective is building up a processor similar to the Eventide H90, that would compete on having top-notch algorithms for reverb, delay, chorus etc. we already have single-effect pedals on the market that are very successful.
In the past 72 hours I have ONE-SHOT decompiled 3 of my main competitors products, including the Strymon Big Sky. I just... have their award winning algorithms now. Like, I could in theory just stick them in a box and resell them. It took one prompt and 3 hours for opus 5.5 to work that out.
The lexicon 224 then got added. While Claude was prepping It found someone else had already done the same thing 1 weeks earlier and dumped the result on GitHub, so it just stole that code and saved some time. It took all of 20 minutes to do the entire Ursa Major product range.
And yes, I've tested them all - and they all sound phenomenal. I specifically asked Claude to first build an emulator and execute the original firmware/ROM so I could be certain it wasn't just making "something similar" but actually executing the same code. Then I asked it to convert it into a self contained c++ library and compare the result to the emulator.
The problem is, everyone can now do this to my products as well. Basically, anyone with a Claude subscription can now rip of any best-in-class algorithm from any competitor. While I'm not going to do that, I know there are 30 Chinese companies that happily would.
The moat of hardware effects processors has just vanished.
The moat for audio effects but especially guitar effects has never been just the quality of algorithm. Yes I know you and the teams at companies like Strymon and Universal Audio and whatnot have slaved over getting every detail right. But what makes Strymon the go to choice for so many players isn't just the sound you can get out of it. Because you can get those sounds elsewhere now.
The moat a physical pro audio product is its interface and its branding. And I know that's tough to hear especially if you're an engineer but its true. People buy Strymon pedals because they know exactly what they're getting and they know its going to be in a format where if you want to dial in a tone without getting into the weeds of menus you can (but if you need to advanced features you can also do that). If people wanted the cheapest way to get those sounds, they could always hook up to a live VST host rig. But you get Strymon because you know that brand name and you know you're going to get a box that you can twiddle the dials on the floor and yes you are also getting that as close to perfect algorithm as well. The sound is part of Strymon's branding but it isn't all of their branding.
Look at it this way, pretty much every original circuit design in the analog guitar pedal space has been copied, duplicated, sold for pennies on the dollar, modified, whatever. But those companies still exist and do well because their moat has never been the circuit, its the branding.
Anyway, I hope you find some peace in the next few days. Its hard to argue that your moat hasn't shrunk and maybe you're in the process of building up that customer base. You gotta think about the copycats and it sucks, but you always had to do that. Its just harder now.
And, the stability of a hardware instrument or effect is considerably higher than that of a computer with 10s of software pieces (and licensing engines) interacting.
And in live music, this is rather critical; some musicians get it instantly, some need a single gig (even in a rehearsal) with their computer setup going dark or blocked or whatever to get it.
I wrote something similar and decided to wait until the morning before sending. You said it better but I'm posting to hopefully give it more weight.
And don't forget, Behringer has been around and reverse engineering successful products as a business model. And I don't think they are putting anyone out of business because customers people know what they're getting when they buy knock-offs.
I'm guessing the Lexicon was mine: https://github.com/joelanders/reflecticon-224
It was a fun project because it predates DSP chips by a couple years (1978). So there's an 8080 host driving some DSP boards made out of 7400 series chips.
Bio of the designer with a photo of him prototyping it: https://www.davidgriesinger.com/biographies/
I haven't written it up yet, that part is still hard :)
I paid someone on Upwork to trace the schematics into KiCad. Had LLM agents turn those into Verilog models. Lots of little mistakes had to be found and fixed at this point, it took months...
It seems like agents are a lot better at transcribing and grokking schematics now compared to 6 months ago, so it might be much easier now.
Agree that consequences for the future seem depressing...
Speaking as a hardware engineer, the moat did not vanish. You have simply assumed you were on the right side of the moat this whole time when in reality you dug half a trench and threw a glass of water in it.
If your firmware is open for someone to reverse engineer now, it has always been open. The real moat is firmware security, encryption, secure locked down hardware. Nobody, not even LLMs, can reverse your firmware if they can't obtain a cleartext copy of it.
You must use microcontrollers with security features, encrypted firmware, secure key stores. If you don't, you never had a moat in the first place. Your only security is the belief that it's too much effort to reverse your product. Security through obscurity is the moat that has vanished and everyone has been screaming for decades that this is not secure by any stretch of the imagination.
Reverse engineering of audio effects can be done completely independently of the hardware that generates it.
What if the audio effect is:
Take an audio stream, apply STT, interpret the result as an algorithm, run the algorithm, take its output, apply TTS, then send that audio stream to the output.
Sounds like it would be susceptible to how they’d reverse engineer LLMs using distillation.
Connect the dots for me, I'm not seeing it. Unless you are talking about building a function approximator for a bunch of measured transfer characteristics, in which case you could as easily do that well before AI.
The several seconds of latency would be fun.
since human hearing is lossy you can get whatever sound you like. In the context of a moat there is none for a sfx
That's basically how convolution reverb has worked for 25 years.
I think you are torturing the analogy.
A moat isn’t a perfect defense. It’s a delay tactic that keeps the enemy from coming right up to your wall and climbing it or breaking it down. While you defend your moat, you whittle down the attackers so even when they do cross it they can be more easily defeated.
Moats and high walls became obsolete when canon fire became common.
Claude isn’t just a faster way to cross the moat, it’s gunpowder, and with it the rules have fundamentally changed.
Firmware security is useless if your product can be bought tested and reverse engineered through multiple trials. So long as you have something that can be understood and used by humans, you have something that can be reverse engineered.
Having the code accessible makes it easier, but just having both input and output is sufficient.
> Moats and high walls became obsolete when canon fire became common.
Moats and high walls, sure. But to this day, the absolute best way to stop any attacker is to dig a trench (most minus water) and to build low parapets, primarily of dirt, sand, barbed wire and ideally some anti tank stuff.
The moat never really went away.
How does your moat do against a B-52?
You may be missing the point, unsure if purposefully or not, but you can't just rent B-52 for $250 a month.
The B-52 analogy seems pretty spot on where the (relatively) sudden capabilities of Claude are similar to now having a B-52 where you can just fly around and find silly little moat/wall defenses and easily destroy them with your one-shot bomb-release button.
Amusingly, if you know about the history of B-52, it's a bad analogy. B-52s biggest war was lost.
A lot better than expected, as Vietnam proved.
That had really nothing to do with the planes. If the US had wanted to turn Vietnam into radioactive glass, the VC had nothing that could stop them.
The problem there is that the US was trying to convert them rather than annihilate them, and then you're not actually trying to penetrate their moat, you're trying to limit casualties, whereas they're not.
And then they're not winning by having a functioning moat, they're winning by refusing to surrender to an enemy that has the ability but not the appetite to wipe them out.
> The problem there is that the US was trying to convert them rather than annihilate them.
Nice history rewriting from the amateur historian ("glass them").
The US dropped more bomb tonnage on North Vietnam than in all of WW2. They dropped more napalm than all of WW2. They even used Agent Orange to defoliate, en masse.
The only thing they didn't use was nukes. And that's because both China and the Soviets had them, not because the goodness of American hearts.
The men on the $2 pedal bikes won. In their moats and tunnels.
trenches aren't stopping the attackers, only protecting the defenders. You "men" the trenches to make them effective
Moats or high walls also didn't stop attackers. You "manned" the walls for both to be effective.
Why do you think star forts had that shape? Why do you think castle walls had murder holes or arrow slits? Etc, etc.
Maybe some of the newer stuff is better, but you're kind of overselling the hardware protection (lol). I'm sure everyone thought RDP1 on the STM32F1xx series was going to stop "bad guys" (or even RDP2, lol) but I was able to do better than Obermaier on firmware recovery of a F103 recently without going to the trouble of doing something like delidding a chip or even undersoldering it. The newer stuff is a little better, but a quarter in the Deepseek machine, some fairly common tools and patience, and even skids will be breaking into your invulnerable firmware fortress. I think the apocalyptic nature of all this just hasn't really sunk in for a lot of EEs or firmware developers.
RDP2 is barely any more secure than RDP1. When the processor boots, it reads the read-out protection value from flash. If it's one specific value, it's RDP2, if it's another specific value, it's RDP0, and if it's any other value, it's RDP1. This means that all you have to do to downgrade the chip to RDP1 is glitch it while it's reading that value, then you can use one of the RDP1 errata to read out the flash.
In general read-out protection only prevents the most casual of hobbyists from getting your firmware. Anyone who thought otherwise even pre-AI doesn't know what they're doing. It's sort of like how blu-ray copy protection only prevents people who don't know about MakeMKV from copying their discs, or how HDCP only prevents people who can't find a $20 HDCP terminating HDMI splitter from capturing the protected video.
They'll just "distil" your hardware from input/outputs.
Especially in the world of audio, where you have a literal hardware jack for both.
Can't help but feel that AI is the killing of the golden goose. We thought it would kill jobs, but it may just end up killing entire industries.
Intellectual property incentivized many and laid many golden eggs, but why would someone toil to create a new algorithm to solve a problem if someone else is just going to steal it in hours?
But who knows, maybe imploding the software industry is a good thing. I may lose my house in the process, but I think we could all get back to touching a little more grass.
it will also help with the environment by stopping a lot of forced obsolescence for no reason (apple rolls out a new OS every year, then magically wacom stops supporting perfectly working tablets in their new driver versions)
Somewhat related, but I sicced an LLM at my wacom's BT and USB packets to connect it to an unsupported system and the dang thing got everything decoded in 15 minutes. Can't wait to resurrect some old hardware I've got laying around.
> why would someone toil to create a new algorithm to solve a problem if someone else is just going to steal it in hours
When that happens it shouldn't be forgotten that people (broadly speaking) chose this. AI proponents lit intellectual property on fire out of self-interest.
The technology is powerful enough that it was bound to happen regardless. If it didn't happen here in the US, it would have happened somewhere that IP laws aren't respected.
That's an age-old rationalization for everything.
I never said it was justified, just observed that it would happen and is happening, regardless of what "AI proponents" want to happen. IP law, like many laws regarding business practices, have and always had varying regulatory environments around the world when countries find it advantageous for their economies to have those environments.
Regardless of whether or not we agree with it, adherence to our idea of IP law is not something the whole world agrees upon, even before LLMs.
> That's an age-old rationalization for everything.
Sometimes they're actually true.
Repeatedly tell people climate change is a serious problem for over half a century -> hand wringing.
Make solar panels cheap -> renewables become 99.2% of net new electricity generation in the US.
You need something that looks like the second one.
I don't think that's the rebuttal you think it is.
GP's argument is usually used in the sense of "if I hadn't done it, someone else would, so I might as well do it and the end result will be the same, except then I'll reap the rewards".
It's a crap justification for doing something unethical. But in many cases, even the unethical ones, it's also true, and I think in this case it is too. If the US had magically shut down every AI lab on day one, and banned all AI research, that wouldn't have stopped this train. Probably would have slowed it down, but not enough to really matter.
In this case, this is what people want - they're fed up with all the IP bullshit, but never before had the tools to trivially bypass it. Now we have.
Also that age-old rationalization has generally always been true.
saying "That's an age-old rationalization for everything." is an age-old rationalization AGAINST everything...
I don't really see your point? Maybe you don't have one?
> but why would someone toil to create a new algorithm to solve a problem if someone else is just going to steal it in hours?
I think it goes deeper than that, in that the AI era will eventually force us to rethink how we value each other. It used to be economic scarcity: I provide a service that very few people can provide, therefore I make a lot of money (supply and demand.) Now we're moving to a place where most anybody can do anything, so our value system needs to evolve, as well. Instead of valuing scarcity, perhaps we should value personal creativity and self-expression. Kind of like paying money for a concert, or for someone's personal painting, even though you can listen online, or you can just have AI generate the same painting. It comes more from wanting to support people than to supply scarcity-based demand.
I think this idea makes many peoples' eyes roll, but IMO that's a testament to where we are today as a society. Most interactions get reduced to just business transactions without the humanity in it, and that's where our problems come from.
That's a nice vision but if AI and robots end up replacing most jobs then we're first going to suffer a total collapse in living standards across the world, until we replace capitalism at least. When the economy no longer relies on labour people won't have anything to trade in exchange for basic necessities.
You only have to look at the current situation in China to see that the problem is not capitalism, or communism, at least not by itself:
https://www.wsj.com/world/china-economy-gen-z-f9058941
https://www.economist.com/china/2019/11/14/homelessness-has-...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Si2zT-wCs3c
We all know that "real" communist societies like North Korea are worse, much, much worse. In fact within China how bad this is varies enormously. If you're in a "rope village" somewhere deep inland, having the finest house in the entire city is arguably worse than homelessness in Beijing, but the party won't let you leave except as homeless, because you're allocated a "Household" (Hukou) and you aren't allowed to leave.
And, of course, half the problem is the very structure of the communist party itself: local officials hide the problem, because if they don't, they'll be purged or at the very least won't see promotions, ever. Which means that the police will be using violence to hide the problem rather than fix it.
AI can provide incredible wealth, or immeasurable misery, in both capitalist and communist societies. That is not what makes the difference, that is just how political parties like to frame themselves and so the argument why you should choose "left" or "right".
Capitalism and private home ownership can certainly provide housing, but if you go too far or not far enough in private ownership and "protecting capital" they won't. And communism can certainly fix homelessness (the Soviets did, for example), except nowadays they just won't.
AI will provide more tools for people with capital, which primarily will be the government. Whether that solves, say, homelessness is a choice, in either system.
You missed the point and went on a tangent about random countries today.
I don't claim to have a solution for what comes after but it is certain that capitalism will collapse if we ever see significant job loss due to AI and robotics.
> it is certain that capitalism will collapse if we ever see significant job loss due to AI and robotics.
The Luddites said the same thing.
FWIW, they were right. Society may have ended up better off in the end, but the Luddites - the actual individuals affected by the transition, and their families and their children - were absolutely screwed for life.
No, they weren't. They got employed by the new factories.
You may want to read past the headline when it comes to luddites. That's exactly what I'm talking about.
Luddites = Angry unemployed people who got proven wrong by being brutally murdered.
Nope.
1) Capitalism has historically been proven to work with 90% unemployment, unlike communism. Of course that would represent an enormous loss compared to today but it would not be enough to collapse it.
2) The same would happen to communism. Talk to someone from China and ask what their government will do when they can run the economy on 90% less people. The answer I've gotten is that they already know: after all the division between CCP/state jobs (which includes all state companies) and "normal" jobs already works like that. Then it was mentioned that there's a reason that people have committed murders for CCP jobs ...
I don't understand what you're complaining about. Yes, the US and Europe are capitalist, BUT there is more than enough room in the law for communist communities. Some of those existed for decades, and some still exist.
If you truly believe communism is better, why not just join one of those instead of dragging everyone along with you?
> Capitalism has historically been proven to work with 90% unemployment
What an extraordinary claim. Elaborate.
> Of course that would represent an enormous loss compared to today but it would not be enough to collapse it.
Betting against a revolution in such a scenario is bold.
> Talk to someone from China
China is capitalist, not communist.
> If you truly believe communism is better, why not just join one of those instead of dragging everyone along with you
Where did I say that? That's a nonsense argument for various reasons but it's not the point of this discussion so I'll skip it.
The Great depression saw 25% unemployment and that was just a temporary upset, try 50% and rising over time. How long are you willing to go hungry supporting capitalism in that environment, and why?
The food is right there, fully automated, the only reason you're not getting it is because you refuse to work in the mines 14 hours a day to get it. Capitalism will survive for a while but people will eventually revolt.
> China is capitalist, not communist.
Not in the slightest. Government controls all the state owned companies and they even still have their five year plans and everything. So no, it isn't. Just like the Soviets and North Korea and Vietnam and ... they let the plebs fight over the last 0.1% of the economy with tokens when it suits them.
Oh right I'm so sorry. There is no true communism anywhere on the planet, nor has there ever been and therefore your precious ideal cannot be judged. Of course, if any of it were to actually be implemented, it would rapidly evolve into "real" communism (as in existing in the real world as opposed to in theory), and it would resume destroying lives like every other real communism has always done ...
But your precious ideal really is perfect (as in I don't want to argue about the ideal communism, a figment of people's imagination, because it's about as relevant as the very intricate arguing online on the politics of "magic for all ponies", the political slogan of the famous show)
But of course you want to argue the ideal since it's really about just using the power of the state to get you a free playstation and a big apartment in the center of a perfect city. Reality is that if such a thing were attempted, playstations would rapidly cease to exist, big apartments would be reserved for party "business" (and mistresses), and the city would be about as perfect as moscow was in the 1970s.
More paragraphs in response to many things I didn't say. If you want to practice arguing for the sake of arguing then I recommend chatgpt.com.
> if AI and robots end up replacing most jobs
The only way AI and robots end up replacing most jobs is if they can do them for less money than people can. Which in turn means that those things become less expensive, since that's the thing causing suppliers to do it.
So there are really three possibilities here. First, we get robots that can e.g. build houses and housing scarcity goes down, so now you don't need to make much money to afford rent. Second, robots still can't build housing, so then you get a job building housing and have a job. Or third, robots still can't build housing but we have a bunch of rent-seeking incumbents that won't allow you to get a job doing that either, because they're trying to keep rents high or artificially limit the supply of trade labor.
It's the third one that really screws you and is the one that we need to prevent.
I don’t want a house built by people who are just trying to get a paycheck because they got laid off from their cushy office jobs.
as opposed to the current people building houses who are doing it because they just love building houses so much
No it's fine, we don't have to require anyone to buy a house built by people who are "just trying to get a paycheck".
As long as nobody is stopping them from building houses for the people who do want them.
> so then you get a job building housing and have a job
Let's say 50% of all jobs are lost. What would that kind of oversupply do to pay rates and working conditions in the remaining sectors?
> Let's say 50% of all jobs are lost.
So now things cost an average of 50% as much. If you were spending $100 before, it's $50 now, and you have the other $50 to spend on something else. Which in turn creates a job doing the something else.
Consider all of the other times things like this have happened. The majority of existing jobs at the time of e.g. the industrial revolution were the occupations that no longer exist or can be done with less than half the original amount of labor. Why then has the modern unemployment rate typically been at <10%? Because then people get other jobs.
The absolute extreme case where all jobs are automated is the one where nobody needs to work because all work is automated and everything is abundant. In every other case, people have jobs doing the things that can't be automated.
If it costs half as much to produce something, is the result that people get more of those things or less? Do more people starve today or in the times before tractors and combine harvesters?
The transition period often sucks, because then you have a lot of people whose skills are misaligned with where the new demand is, but long term that goes away so the real question is what do you want to do about it in the short term.
Oh, think it will/can be worse than that. The collapse of the present system can mean all out genocidal wars, either by eugenic and deranged humans doing it to themselves or true AGI and its robots removing human interference with its goals and Earth's resources.
As for the AGI and robot part, various oligarchs are talking about manufacturing millions to even billions of robots. Combine that with billions of AI agents in massive data centers all over the world. Bringing forth a new self-sustaining artificial life form that can do what humans do (if not vastly better) and at comparable numbers or mass.
This was a huge problem before AI due to Amazon and global internet marketplaces. Why spend R&D dollars developing an amazing product when Chinese knockoffs will show up 6 months later? I wonder how many great consumer products don't exist because there's no way to recoup your R&D costs and develop a healthy market.
Imagine if there were no intellectual protections for pharmaceuticals. The government would have to take over R&D.
Intellectual property is terrible for society on the whole.
You could just as easily argue "why are 200 companies burning through people and natural resources to come up with the exact same thing and then marketing it as different" as you can say "why would anyone create anything without the ability to making oodles of money by restricting imitation".
Just stop this nonsense. Intellectual property is good. Free open source is not good. Anything that is free while take a lot of effort is essentially killing potential jobs. Wake up.
In a society rich enough to be able to provide for everyone (which it is) and where food and housing are abundant (which they should be), then things being free isn't bad because you aren't worried about making money to live.
You are the one who needs to wake up from the assumption that the only way to live is to hoard your intellectual products instead of imagining a society where you can stop having to compete on that level.
Not only that, rent seeking destroys jobs as a result of artificial scarcity and hoarding.
You pay $1000 to a monopolist instead of $100 to a small business and then having the other $900 to spend on whatever you want, like patronizing 9 other small businesses and actually getting something more for your money. The $900 in monopoly rent goes to Wall St instead of Main St and is used to e.g. bid up housing costs so people can't afford to buy a house.
The incumbents lobby for restrictive zoning or professional licensing gatekeeping to keep those rents high, which means fewer jobs doing construction.
It doesn't help you for huge corporations to get more of your money.
These numbers are made up. I don't see how IP clearly makes things worse or better.
On one hand, yes, IP = monopoly = rents, as you say.
But on the other hand, no IP means economy of scale is a lot more important, and that favors huge corporations.
Which effect is bigger? I don't know.
> But on the other hand, no IP means economy of scale is a lot more important, and that favors huge corporations.
"IP" is the thing that favors economies of scale.
Suppose you're a manufacturing company and you want to make your own computers. You're great at making the chassis and screen and batteries and things like that, but to make a whole device you also need an operating system, a compiler, a web browser, a CPU, etc.
If you're free to use existing ones then you have a chance. If you have to develop every one of those things in-house because every existing one is the property of an incumbent who is using it as a moat then you have to be a megacorp or you're sunk.
Notice that this is what all of the smaller companies actually do. Every small consumer device OEM and some of the big ones are using some variant of Linux/Android or BSD rather than developing their own OS. NeXT, the scrappy company Apple bought and turned into Mac OS X when they were themselves the underdog, was based on BSD. RISC-V has shipped more than 30 billion cores and is taking a decent chunk of the embedded market from ARM, which is itself a company that licenses its designs to companies that compete with each other (and run Linux on their chips) rather than using exclusivity and mandatory vertical integration to try to monopolize the whole supply chain. Which is how the mobile market went to them rather than Intel and Microsoft. Who themselves took the desktop and server markets from even more vertically integrated mainframe companies.
The availability of composition is what allows you to be a small company that does one thing well. Which is the thing you can't do when someone else has a monopoly on something you don't make but need, and correspondingly isn't willing to sell it to someone who is trying to compete with them in a different part of the supply chain.
Moreover, the economies of scale you're talking about on the other side actually have diminishing returns. Suppose anybody who wants to make a product that typically sells for $100 has to buy a $10,000 machine in order to do it, but then can make an unlimited number of them. If you're so small that you only ship 100 units, the cost of that machine by itself is adding $100 to the cost of producing of each unit and you're pretty screwed. But if you're a medium sized company and you ship a million units, it's only adding one cent. The advantage of the medium company over the small one is dramatic. Whereas the megacorp that ships ten billion units shaves it down to 1/10000th cent, but then the advantage of the megacorp over the medium one is still less than one cent.
On top of that, it's often something like you need a $10,000 machine that can make a million units even if you only use it to make a hundred, and then the scale advantage of the medium company over the small one is all still there, but the advantage of the megacorp over the medium one doesn't even exist because then to make ten billion units they need ten thousand machines.
Which is even before we get to diseconomies of scale: The larger an entity is, the more efficiency you lose to bureaucracy, coordination costs, principal-agent problems, internal politics, etc.
There is a reason industries with low barriers to entry tend not to monopolize. Why is there no monopolist who grows all of the coffee or weaves all of the clothing? Shouldn't "economies of scale" allow a single huge company to out-compete all of these little ones in the absence of anyone having a way of excluding competitors?
Conversely, find a consolidated industry and you'll generally find some kind of government-backed monopoly or regulatory capture.
> Why is there no monopolist who [...] weaves all of the clothing
I have bad news for you...
I can't find any sources implying that there is any single company or country that produces the majority of clothing. China and the EU are each around a third with no single country having even a majority of the remaining third, and China and the EU each have multiple internal producers in competition with each other.
Are you objecting to the use of the term "weaving" to describe modern clothing production?
You completely missed the point.
AnthonyMouse gave you a overly lengthy rebuttal without getting to the point but the cost structure of IP is as follows: the marginal cost of making a copy is low enough to be negligible compared to the fixed cost of creating it.
This means the theoretical marginal cost is equal to the development cost divided by the number of paying customers. Where the development cost can either be a one time expense or an ongoing expense.
Companies make the fixed investment (or take someone else's fixed investment like an open source project) and they charge market rate pricing. The difference between the marginal cost (which is dropping with scale) and the market rate is economic rent or producer surplus. Competing companies pop up and work on their own product because they see the producer surplus and want a piece for themselves. This is how you get many companies wast the producer surplus on reinventing the same software over and over again.
Now with open source software you have the opposite problem. The marginal cost is zero, but the fixed cost still has to be paid. This means that the customer gets something that they would otherwise have to pay market rate pricing for free, this is consumer surplus. The marginal cost that the consumer would have to pay to keep the project alive becomes irrelevant the more consumers there are, which makes open source a financial tragedy because it fixed the cost structure problem at the expense of self sacrifice.
> You completely missed the point.
No, I get the argument they were trying to make.
The premise is, if you don't have some way of excluding competitors then you're in a competitive market and larger companies have the advantage of lower fixed costs per unit. There are fixed costs other than R&D, like the capital cost of buying manufacturing equipment or regulatory certifications or things like that. In the abstract a larger company can then use that to charge lower prices and out-compete anyone else.
But past a certain size that doesn't actually happen anymore. If you're so small that your costs are 100% higher then you're probably screwed, but if your costs are <1% higher then there are plenty of other ways to make up for that.
> which makes open source a financial tragedy because it fixed the cost structure problem at the expense of self sacrifice.
Except that it actually works fine. You have a piece of community-developed software that it would costs you a billion dollars to produce from scratch and it works except for a few issues that are costing you a million dollars and would take half a million in development resources to fix. Half a million is less than a million and is way less than a billion. So each company hires a small number of developers to make the contributions most relevant to their own business and get what they want, rather than one company hiring a large number of developers to introduce all the principal-agent problems inherent in central planning etc.
This even works where you have 20 companies that are each losing $100,000 for not having a feature that would cost a million dollars to develop, because then instead of one of them contributing a million dollars in resources, they each contribute $50,000. And you don't need there to be perfectly exact accounting here because the company has already hired a couple of developers to add the feature that costs $500k and gets them $1M and can have the same people collaborate with other users on the feature they all need. Or they make a financial contribution along with a feature request and multiple companies wanting the same feature collectively provide enough to develop it.
Where it actually breaks down is where you have companies whose management is too daft to realize that it does work and then doesn't make any contributions. So they lose a million dollars in value because they didn't want to contribute $500k, or they pay a million dollars to license some proprietary software from a company who keeps the other $500k as profit instead of paying half that much to get the existing open source project into the state where they can use it.
You are living in a dream world. Look around what is happening on planet Earth.
Are you from 1995? FLOSS won long ago. Services give companies far more money than software. Closed software it's dead. Custom services and in-place programming (adding features, interop...) for small non-IT companies gives far more money for IT companies.
> but why would someone toil to create a new algorithm to solve a problem if someone else is just going to steal it in hours?
The same reason I have open sourced every line of code I have written in the last several years, even new inventions. Because it is good for society, and good for my reputation to show what I am capable of which has been very good for my career.
Better to be the one to open source it before someone else does.
The only business model left is convenience tax. Save people time and they give you money.
> Because it is good for society, and good for my reputation to show what I am capable of which has been very good for my career.
I feel that LLMs are destroying the reputation building benefits as well. It used to be that most people's published code was a result of their personal effort and thought process. This is no longer the case. Not only are many new contributions written by machine, but the very process of understanding and reasoning about code has been devalued.
Yes, and this is a net positive. The only reputation points that will matter will be building novel things to solve problems no one has ever solved before. Incentives are much better aligned for progress instead of everyone wasting time building yet another todo list app as a resume booster.
> The only business model left is convenience tax. Save people time and they give you money.
Which is why LLMs are going to kill most of the software industry. Software products and services operate on this assumption - package some functionality into an opinionated UI that makes some kind of work marginally more convenient, slap a brand on top, and you now have a captive audience and the perfect upsale/ad delivery vector, i.e. the user interface.
LLMs flip that around, because suddenly, your UI is an obstacle sitting between the user and the problem they want to solve.
> LLMs are going to kill most of the software industry.
I sure hope so! Greedy bastard corpos trying to gatekeep access to software and information have been holding human progress back for far too long.
>and good for my reputation
Do you think this will still apply for future generations? It seems like many people now are grabbing code either directly from model training or using agents to blindly scrape the web, finding code and customizing it without ever considering the author. Do you think individual contributors of open source code will have the same reputational incentive?
> Do you think this will still apply for future generations?
Not in the same way. Like today if you see a programmer with a bunch of punch cards of assembly they hand coded, that is impressive, but if that is all they have I would question if they can provide value in a modern software org.
The reputation that matters moving forward will be the 100x engineer that is digitally sovereign and built all the software they use from firmware to kernel to UX. The one who automates everything, has a history of making things people want, and understands a system down to the metal. That is the only person I could be convinced to hire at this point, and the person I am striving to become.
Everyone else will be unemployable in tech.
This has been debated about for quite a while, where people give donations in support or the "pay what you can" model.
Unfortunately, many have argued that it (donations or PWYC) doesn't work and people usually pay only when forced to. There is also the claimed psychological issue, where when something is made free or people can pay minimum amounts, that it is devalued or thought as near worthless. On the flip, various people and organizations have claimed that it's possible to use alternate models, depending on how it's done.
Hackers with time on their hands will never pay for anything on a computer they can do themselves, but those with more money than time will pay even if it is open source.
IDK about the grass, bro, I've mostly just seen a lot of pavement since I lost my SWE job
Patents will become the norm with AI. Of course the average joe will not be able to afford it.
Patents are essentially unenforceable. Plus to enforce them in court it takes.. years? International cases can take even longer.
With the advent of AI, everything will be faster.
Intellectual property has rarely ever been "the golden goose", despite the anecdotes of the few Henry Fords that exist.
Throughout history, the golden goose has typically been owning capital, and having market reach (see: advertising, the silk road).
No matter how amazing your IP is, if you can't produce it at economically viable scales, and if you can't put it in front of people who will buy it, then you have nothing. So venture capital comes along, buys you out, and takes all your future profits in exchange for the "risk".
On the other side of the coin, there's open source software developers, PhD's publishing papers for free, and your local musicians that like to play at events just for funsies.
I mean, imagine the kind of world we'd live in if medicine were focused strictly on profitable moats instead of open research, and... oh. Right.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Insulin
> but why would someone toil to create a new algorithm to solve a problem if someone else is just going to steal it in hours?
same reason I spent my entire career so far writing open-source code that anyone can copy ? (it's GPL, but imagine 100% companies actually caring about that). Ideas can't be owned.
> but it may just end up killing entire industries.
as did the internet before it
> but it may just end up killing entire industries.
how many record companies have been put out of business by piracy?
Or you do as OpenAI & Co. do and just rent out a service
people keep talking about AI killing this or that, but I feel they will create new industries. 50 years ago new tech can shift industries over decade or so, but AI will shift it in 1/5 or in a year, 2 even 1/10 of the time.
Your question presupposes new algorithms must come from someone toiling. But AI will be just as capable at developing new algorithms as ripping off the existing ones, surely?
One of the best quotes about moats, friction and pricing comes from an author:
"I wrote a book and there is an epub version of it. I have the epub version for free on my website. There is also an epub version on Amazon and there is costs $4.
You might think that nobody buys my book because it's available for free.
You would be mistaken. LOTS of people pay for the book on Amazon and almost no one downloads it from my website.
Why?
Very obviously people are lazy and they are willing to pay the $4 to just one click deliver the book to their Kindle."
I hope your post history doesn't link back to your company or real identity because you probably violated some TOS and I'm not sure it's smart to name your competitors and openly admit you're thinking about repackaging the code you just stole from them.
I don't care either way but depending on where you live this might get you in trouble
Indeed. I'd like to remind everyone that with LLMs it's increasingly simple to build quite a good profile of someone just from their social media posts.
But that’s a good thing. Instead of someone being able to just lock the knowledge away, now we can all have it. And that means we can make better things.
It sucks if you’re a rent seeker, but I’m enjoying this post-IP world. I don’t care who reads my source code anymore, code is disposable. It’s expertise that matters now.
The problem is that many of us seek employment from rent seekers. It's all great in theory, but not fun in the in-between times if you're trying to pay your own rent and find placement and nobody wants to bring anyone new on board because they can't find ways to make it profitable.
> It's all great in theory, but not fun in the in-between times if you're trying to pay your own rent.
To add to this, the Second Industrial Revolution started in 1870 and the 40 hour workweek became common starting around 1920. That's basically a lifetime.
If an asset doesn't exist to hold value, how do you "protect" expertise? How do you differentiate it? How do you justify investment if someone else will steal anything of value you create?
For a short while, it's great, but in the long run, it makes it difficult to financially invest in building software with either time or money.
> Instead of someone being able to just lock the knowledge away, now we can all have it
Uhh I think you're missing a tiny 3 trillion dollar detail. I understand though, something that small and inconsequential is easy to overlook.
What 3 trillion dollar details? What are people here smoking?
$10 a month to unlock the world 6 months before the same is available for free. $200 a month if you're in a hurry.
The fee is flat, and all the value produced stays with the user.
It's one of the best deals on anything software industry produced ever. And they can't walk back on it, because open weight models act as a rachet.
> It sucks if you’re a rent seeker, but I’m enjoying this post-IP world
Oh yes, this new world is terrible for rent seekers. It's like the kum-bah-yah free software world Stallman might have imagined. Information wants to be free and all. Can't stop the signal. Very counterculture. Like the Adobe clone apps.
Except for the closed SOTA model weights, out of reach hardware, and the resulting $200 subscription rent now paid readily both by anybody trying to create something new, and anybody who wants to rip it off. That particular flavor of rent seeking is booming.
I myself am a "rent-seeker" in an alternative sense of "I seek a way to pay for my own continued shelter via my creative output" and it definitely seems like it's gonna suck for me.
> Except for the closed SOTA model weights, out of reach hardware, and the resulting $200 subscription rent now paid readily both by anybody trying to create something new, and anybody who wants to rip it off. That particular flavor of rent seeking is booming.
SOTA only provides agents that are easier to manage. Such agents will likely also be made available in open models, as it is primarily a post-training issue.
Even if it never comes, the best open models are already capable of performing these tasks.
Yep. Current open weight models that you can run on prosumer hardware are on par if not better than Opus 4.6. And Opus 4.6 was deemed revolutionary in terms of performance.
It's fantastic for the rent seeking AI providers. They can squeeze users any which way the want and if anyone so much as utters a peep of complaint, they can be banned for life without recourse.
> The moat of hardware effects processors has just vanished.
There was never one to begin with. With a sufficiently good quality generator and a digital oscilloscope one could reverse engineer any kind of DSP - including harmonizers.
The real moat is the same as in every business - customer service, durability, warranty - things like that.
If someone vibecoded a clone of Valve's Steam nothing would change, because the system itself is not the thing that makes their business so valuable.
Everybody's moats have all vanished. It's getting to the point credentialism is people's only remaining leverage: only reason many people still have jobs is they have some professional credential that the AIs legally can't have. Doctors, lawyers, engineers whose signatures matter and who are liable for whatever happens. And even in those cases it's only a matter of time really.
Compute is the only true moat. Ownership of high performance computers will be the deciding factor in the future. Haves and have-nots will be determined by this.
Then you will compete on different things, i guess. For audio hardware, the physicality and experience of using it is important. Have better knobs, better usability, and the best algorithms!
Also, I guess with agents it should be possible to explore new algorithms more efficiently. You may discover something cool! And yes, anyone can copy it, but you will still have first mover advantage. Also, in music tech brands matter a lot. People love getting stuff from small “artisan” companies.
Do you think Chinese manufactures can't clone the hardware? Do you think they can't provide a premium product/experience? They most certainly can and do.
Just be different. Just create a brand. Oh if only it were that easy!
Boss still exists and sells pedals even though Behringer has made a $30 (more in the USA now thanks to tariffs) clone of virtually all of their guitar pedals. One of those clones (as opposed to the original) even being the best selling pedal ever.
Boss is part of a company that's over 50 years old, has half a billion dollars in revenue and 3000 employees. The op is a small shop just trying to get started. They aren't even in the same galaxy.
OP was talking about reversing some pedals of more established pedal manufacturers; the proper comparison is Boss to Strymon or Wampler and whatnot, not Boss to OP.
Isn't that kind of the same like Line6 emulating the exact electric circuits of amps and pedals, or like everyone and their dog is now building and selling Klon clones?
I think guitar effects have been mostly about doing the features the player wants, and marketing/brand/packaging, for a long time.
Brands only matter if there is some value to the brand.
People spend a lot for brands in music hardware because they know that brand cares and invests a lot into the quality of their product. It's not like a handbag where the value is primarily the status of owning something expensive (although there is obviously some of this too).
But if there's no real quality difference anymore people will rightfully ask why they'd pay the extra?
I think a more comparable example here might be SaaS products. People don't buy a branded SaaS product for the status of owning the brand. They just want to know if it will solve the problem they have. And if some AI competitor product can do that thing just as well either for free or half the price, then people won't spend what they used to for software like Photoshop.
Why don’t you do as much of this as possible for the next six months and make the best product you can.
It sounds like it will go faster if you use coding agents.
Anyone copying you will have to do the same.
Perhaps spend a month with your agent making it harder for other agents to reverse engineer?
Don't worry, you'll be making hardware pedals with webassembly and remote attestation soon enough, and we'll be back to the status quo.
It'll be kind of nice that DSP guitar pedals will be cloneable like old-school analog guitar pedals.
The only marketing strategy left will be that of "authenticity" and "human made".
That really must be scary. I'd hope at least in the world of music/audiophilia (where gold plates hdmi cables rule) you could focus on the upper ends of the market? Even if the sound is similar you hopefully will have an audience that appreciated the fit and finish and high quality components. Surely will be a challenge but when I see teardowns from China they almost always cheap out with paper caps and such. And while it may be exhausting perhaps you can turn it to your favor (where IP permits) to increase your product range? Godspeed though!
Already for some years. You can now buy decent metal (enclosure) guitar pedal stompboxes for 5 USD… who can produce for that? The only thing that counts is ideas.
I guess patents are becoming more important now ... :(
They never weren't important. What's important now is being prepared to act on them, which is expensive.
No product is now safe. Everything from photoshop to office suite to harvey are being reverse engineered.
Out of curiosity, did you just use vanilla Claude Code with Opus 5.5, or did you use this: https://github.com/morluto/rea?
One solution is to encrypt the firmware and keep the decryption keys on the hardware side, preferably in something that’s tamper resistant.
It’s not ideal. It has serious drawbacks. It makes development and updates a PITA. But it does make it much harder to decompile your firmware.
Even so, if you can manage to get a agent into the loop of "change variable > inspect results > do change > repeat", you can replicate everything from server-side game servers to audio effects, as long as you manage to get the data into a format they can either "visually" inspect, or inspect by data. For audio, I've had success replicating synth sounds and effects by giving them MIDI access to analog hardware, spectrograms and a suite of other unix tools.
The tricky part is figuring out the workflow, once that's in place, you can encrypt the protocol itself as much as you want, the output (audio, video, JSON, whatever) has to go somewhere, and that can be captured and replicated.
Or just ask Claude what is the best way to protect your IP. It should know its capabilities.
I wouldn't be surprised if the next version of Opus or whatever Anthropic has just eliminates these capabilities. I mean, we got DMCA shoved down our throats. What's stopping them from doing something similar again, I mean, we have a 70 or 70+ year copyright laws now, lol!
A lot of the security features on microcontrollers are poorly implemented. Here's an example where someone recovered the encryption key on a consumer device with encrypted firmware: https://garyodernichts.blogspot.com/2024/10/looking-into-nin... . The microcontroller supports firmware encryption with a 128-bit AES key, which gets written to 4 32-bit write-only registers. Because it's split up like this, it's possible to find 1/4 of the key by writing every possible value to one of the registers and checking that the output matches, before repeating with the other 3 registers. This means that the number of possible combinations to check is reduced from (2^128) to (4*(2^32)), which can be brute forced in a few hours.
I agree it’s not great, and finding an MCU that does this well is challenging. But that may just become a hardware design constraint going forward.
It’s not clear to me what else one can do to protect this kind of IP if you want or need to do the processing on-device.
Maths are just maths again!
Enough with patents, NDAs and trade secrets.
Seems "information wants to be free" wins yet again. To bad we don't have any strong political leaders in the world that could run on such platform, I guess in 2-3 decades the tide will start turning the other way again.
I wonder what the downstream effects of that will be. I imagine we may see some big lawsuits soon, meant to scare off the RE trend.
Philosophically RMS won in the end.
Except GPL is done too when anyone can license wash FOSS to public domain via Claude and friends.
Every MIT software can be forked over to GPL2 at some point.
Also you can reimplement, but not steal the code.
GPL is a means to an end. If all source code is available always, it becomes unnecessary.
The end goal was always that you could go and modify your printer drivers if you wanted to.
You forgot the sharing point.
How will the economy even work in this case?!
everybody cloned stuff before. You keep your clients because you offer more than the lowest available price: the human touch (support, design, quality, problem solving)
LLMs only appear to do that, if they do it effectively is because you can.
Good for consumers, they were selling that Centaur Klon for 3gs. 3gs for a peddle, what sort of monopoly is that? I'm looking forward to clones. Do i feel bad for them? Yes, initially. But coming from the software side, after the initial shock, i see so much potential now.
The Klon was never $3k new.
That happened on the used market after they were no longer manufactured, and the original was seen on a few idolized players' boards.
And there have been Klon clones for ages, including a follow on version by the original designer.
Man this thread is jam packed with sociopaths who don't feel empathy.
That sucks that your business and mental well-being are threatened by AI. It's a scary time for everyone. I hope you figure it out.
Basically, AI has turned everything into open-source. People are likely to not buy your product because: (1) they can get it for free (2) ask AI to reverse engineer whatever you put out (3) they have no money (as out of work or AI putting them out of work soon).
The only winner (kind of), is the AI companies, with "token addicts" and subscription fees. But even that is in doubt, because of the data center debt[1][2] many are in and artificially low prices (to create addicts).
Unless laws are put up quickly to protect IP, which is doubtful (as courts and politicians are mostly clueless about technology), this has become the new weird reality.
[1] https://archive.ph/wWY2g (Investors dump data centre bonds as AI borrowers face ‘Darwin moment’)
[2] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KChHY1kDOFQ (AI Bubble | Ed Zitron)
> Unless laws are put up quickly to protect IP
Protect IP from what? The fundamentals of the situation have not changed. The only difference now is that the models are doing the work.
Replace 'models' with 'humans', and you get bog-standard RE. The models just accelerated the timeline where this scenario would've happened.
The solution you propose already exists in its primitive form: It's called Section 1201 of the DMCA. What you're asking for extends that protection to the whole program, not just the DRM, and thus killing all of reverse engineering altogether.
------
Copyright as it exists is no different than real estate: Landowners extracting rent from properties they own, in exchange for promises on routine maintenance & upgrades.
What we have now is a machine that can look at a building & remake it to at least 90+% similarity, given enough iterations.
And we're discussing about banning the machine.
Actually, there are also protections against reverse engineering in many software licenses, so that goes to court under various contract laws.
No matter which laws are used in the attempt to protect IP, it requires lawyers and going to court, and the little guys will usually have neither the money or time to fight.
Shocking that the current guitar market is so big, I wouldn't panic over a small project like this since it's still projected to grow
Maybe so, but people don't always buy a product because it's the best possible one, or because they're locked into an ecosystem ("moat"). Think of all the products out there that don't rely on a secret algorithm. How are they successful?
Well, reverse-engineers could have done this before, but you didn't pay one $3,000 to do it. You paid Claude $30 or whatever to do it. So all that changed was the cost, and the bar is now a lot higher to make a product people will pay for. Furthermore, no one signaled to the market that there was value there, so no one in China reverse-engineered it for $30 before AI. Makes me wonder if these "award-winning" algorithms are valuable due to prestige alone.
You should talk to a lawyer. And not post something like this publicly
Imagine if your comment is part of Exhibit A in a lawsuit.
I don't really think software was ever the moat with these kinds of products? The moat with hardware products has always been access to electrical engineering talent and access to cheap assembly/manufacturing. And marketing. And the $$ in your pocket to fund all the above without having sales yet.
I have written probably a dozen software synthesizers over the last 20 years, for fun, never profit. I would have preferred those to be hardware products. But I lack all of the above. As do most.
I have worked in several embedded companies. The software that runs on them was often considered to be the least important part of the expense chain despite involving the most amount of total work hours.
The Chinese were already hacking your firmware if it was worth hacking at all. The only thing that's changed is that now you can, too. What's not to like?
Before the Singularity: build good products, offer them at a fair price and support them well, succeed at business.
After the Singularity: build good products, offer them at a fair price and support them well, succeed at business.
People should be aware that whatever they are doing with AI, the company they are paying subscription fees to and who owns the AI will usually know too. Your secrets are now theirs too, to sell to others.
After the Singularity (possibly): build good products, get reverse engineered and copycats offered, nobody wants to buy what they can get for free or have AI make for them, rather ask AI those support questions, forced into different kind of business.
From "Simulate cassette tape audio profiles using FFmpeg" https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49062870 :
> Neural Amp Modeler (is open source)
> JUCE on embedded, Rust DSP
> A board of guitar pedals with IDK one USB-A and a USB-C adapter with OSC and MIDI support; USB MIDI trololo pedals
There are multiple products like this on Amazon+Shopify w/ linked inventory now
This is interesting. I don't know if this is just cope, but it makes me think of how the schematics of a Soldano SLO100 are readily available. A true feat of engineering. Anyone could build one because the information is out there. Why don't they?
I know that it's much easier to get JLC to make a board and then flash some stolen firmware on it than it is to build a tube amplifier, but musicians are weird creatures.
All I know is, I would rather be in the before times.
The only solution is reputation and selling to the public domain, instead of to individuals:
if people like your stuff, you'll have a reputation because of what you made in the past, then you can offer to release your next project to the public domain if some crowdfunding goal is met.
That is possible, crowdfund the money up front based on reputation or the buzz surrounding the idea. The more popular something is, however, the more likely it will become a target for copycats.
Part of the issue is that people can feed the idea, descriptions, and pictures into the AI. Thus create knockoffs, for their crowdfund or as the basis for their similar software.
If the original person ever actually releases software, they can buy a copy and feed to the AI, to then beef up the features in the previously created similar software. The difference between the original and copycats can be few to just about none.
Unless the original creator is willing to fight it out in court, there is little they can do about the situation. Updates made in the original, can be "transferred" to the copycats. AI makes the speed and quality orders of magnitude higher.
It's happening. Check Artcraft. And Adobe could still profit from it. Custom plugins for companies, interop, optimization, rock-solid polished releases (and more optimized than ever) than vanilla MIT builds...
Also as a plus every user would be trained on Adobe's workflow. Companies would just pay Adobe for stable releases... and support. Ah, yes, the LLM's... sure. But when you have humans on your side, things get explained much better, even if Adobe points to an AI too to troubleshoot. They know how to explain problems to an AI and tell the best solutions to the user back and forth.
How that's all going to go down remains to be seen, because it's not clear how Adobe and Microsoft (who have very deep pockets) view the situation or what their response is going to be.
While it is true that money could possibly be made indirectly and around the product (e.g. training, support, ads), the questions surrounding doing the equivalent of turning their IP into open-source remains. Usually, dominant companies don't like change or having to figure out new ways to obtain revenue, other than what's direct and obvious to them.
As for customization and plugins, that looks to be an AI versus IP problem too: (1) that companies would turn to Adobe or Microsoft, versus using their own AI (2) 3rd parties reverse engineering their plugins with AI.
Most likely way that it appears possible, is some type of licensing deal between the AI company and the original IP owner. Would be surprised if they do that smoothly, prior to lots of court fights, because corporate types usually don't like to share.
They can't prevent people from making their own in-house clones. They can take down Artcraft/whatever OSS repo but it's meaningless. I have my own C++ Photoshop/Office clones that I've been using for a few months now. Full replacement for anything Microsoft/Adobe has put out. How are they going to prevent me from using my own code? Or how will they prevent anyone else from just vibing up another Artcraft replacement (in case it gets taken down)?
Wait, who owns GitHub again?
True, at the moment, they can't stop the AIs or who is already in possession of the code. But, they can go after anybody hosting that code (as they have done similarly before).
And the AI companies themselves are also a target, to disallow asking or performing the reverse engineering of designated IP.
The Empire (can) Strike(s) Back (unfortunately).
There's always Gitlab, self-hosting, a tons of other alternatives (Fossil with the builtin server).
Any company that's of the US or from other friendly countries, will not stop courts from going after those hosting certain IP (if it goes down like that) they say should be taken down.
Yes, the counter would be to decentralize, but that doesn't stop going after the AI companies too. At the very least, a type of chilling effect can be created, where people and especially companies (with more to lose) would not want to risk using.
From the looks of it, the court cases are coming. Have no idea how things will turn out, other than this looks far from over.
Wine tells me otherwise from reimplementations.
Also, https://osgameclones.com
Otter Browser it's pretty much inspired from Opera 12 too.
And, for a much better example, XMMS vs WinAMP 2/3, virtually the exact same interface, with skins support.
GNU/Linux itself clones the Unix interface, API and ABI. And so did the BSD's.
Another example, Lesstif when Motif was propietary. Same API, and you could run lots of stuff written for Motif under LessTif. Now libre Motif superseded it around a decade ago.
What the music and movie industry did and does, in regards to IP, is the counter-example.
This is software, not media. Different laws apply. Unix and GNU mirrored 1:1 (and extended) a commercial, propietary OS (different Unix flavours). With FVWM + LessTif + gcc you basically had a reimplemented Unix workstation at home.
Bash, GCC, *utils, X.org, LessTif, ZIP vs PKZIP...
Also, every libre Smalltalk IDE out there had the virtual UI as the propietary ones.
Also, FreeDOS in the 90's and DOSEmu. Same virtual interface and usage.
bro, music people are buying switches - like layer 2 switches - for better audio quality.
you're confusing musicians with "audiophiles"
Musicians want electronics made on schematics from 1930's with better quality parts or designs of wood and metal from 1400-1800. (Ones with sponsors even use the original pieces and not reproductions, check any large orchestra.) And then there's the ones using only/mostly software... based on circuits from 1930's and simulating math and designs from 1400-1800.