Peer Review Paragraph

Thomas Jefferson recognized the importance of developing pre existing ideas and, therefore, had a more constructive view of patents and copyright, “he [Jefferson] favored just enough incentive to create, nothing more, and thereafter allowing ideas to flow freely” (Lethem 216). Jefferson recognized that restricting people's access to an item discourages innovation because in the end no two people will see the item the same, and thereby everyone’s vision for the object is different. Jefferson’s vision was brought to life when the students at Duke began experimenting with Apple’s iPod. Apple earned their money from the iPod but also let these young future-thinking minds have free reign to experiment with the device, which lead to crowdsourced applications for it in the educational system. In fact, as Davidson says, “Working together, and often alongside their profs, they came up with far more learning apps for their iPod than anyone - even at Apple - had dreamed possible”(Davison 52), showing that collectively the student body was more intelligent, or at least intelligent in a different way, than the R&D team at a fortune 500 company. Letting anybody create an app, as Apple does, only makes their own products more desirable because it adds more features, all the while encouraging everyone to get involved in innovation.

Clearly, throughout history it has been encouraged and common for people to grab others ideas and build on them as long as something extra was brought to the table. The renaissance was a reincarnation of ancient Greek and Roman ideas and culture; the industrial revolution in America began because British ideas were ‘stolen’ and brought across the Atlantic. Thomas Jefferson recognized the importance of developing pre-existing ideas and, therefore, had a more constructive view of patents and copyright, “he [Jefferson] favored just enough incentive to create, nothing more, and thereafter allowing ideas to flow freely” (Lethem 216). Jefferson recognized that restricting people's access to an item discourages innovation because in the end no two people will see the item the same, and thereby the creative possibilities for the object are astronomical.

Jefferson’s vision was brought to life when the students at Duke began experimenting with Apple’s iPod. Apple earned their money from the iPod but also let these young future-thinking minds have free reign to experiment with the device, which lead to crowdsourced educational applications, letting Apple enter a whole new market - one that they probably had not envisioned. In fact, as Davidson says, “Working together, and often alongside their profs, they came up with far more learning apps for their iPod than anyone - even at Apple - had dreamed possible” (Davidson 52), showing that collectively the student body was more creative, or at least creative in a different way, than the R&D team at a Fortune 500 company. The students made a device designed for and used to listen to music into a learning tool without a clear objective, demonstrating that letting anybody create an app, as Apple does, only makes their own products more desirable because it adds more features, all the while encouraging everyone to get involved in innovation.

My peer reviewer commented on how my paragraphs were all about a page each so I split this paragraph in to two at a suitable place that separates two distinct points, which in turn makes it easier to convey my ideas. It was also said that I needed more analysis so separating it into two makes the analysis easier. I added more build up to the first quote and analysis after it. In addition, I changed the wording of a couple of sentences and switched out some words to be more exact. This all works towards my thesis by making the argument I'm making clearer, easier to compartmentalize and more exact.