While businesses complain that they are losing money in the information age, I don't see them doing anything creative about their problem.
All I see is legal actions: law suits and protectionist lobbying.
As a public service to these poor uncreative companies I will begin a list here of alternate business models as I find them. Sure, any random model won't fit any all requirements, but some model just might be better than bankruptcy. I welcome suggestions in the comments, and will post them up into this journal entry if I like them. This page is therefore always in a state of ongoing editing...

GAMING

• Sell Subscriptions. This is already done in the form of on-line gaming (like World of Warcraft)

• Sell hardware not software. Gaming controlers or other specialised physical world artifacts that are either outright required to play the game, or are helpful to play the game.

MEDIA

• The Long Tail

Early in the 21st Century, innovation in Amerika had basically stalled. Everything was either patented or copyright. The few truly new innovations invariably at least partly infringed on various copyrights and patents. The resulting royalty demands meant that many new ideas were left unreleased for legal reasons.

The human race though, is not just one country, not just one governance and not ruled by Amerika.

Other countries saw the road that Amerika was following was dangerous. Promises to respect patents were quickly forgotten once countries decided it was no longer in their interest to honour them. So while companies controlled and stymied innovation in Amerika, sciences flourished elsewhere.
The social and scientific revolution that had profited Amerika for over one hundred years was drawing to a close. Artists and scientists could no longer work in an environment where new ideas and new works could not be based on the works of those that came before. Those that didn't work for large corporations, those that wished to explore their own creativity and those without teams of lawyers were persecuted by the corporations. The corporations had tremendous clout, and they squeezed the noose tighter, forcing all to either join a corporation, and research only as directed, or to leave Amerika.

Many of the brightest and most talented simply left.

This served only to enrich the other nations further. While Amerika stagnated, embroiled in legal battles where only lawyers profited, other nations began to innovate. New medicines were created, and existing ones were shown harmful. Artists were free to express themselves. Technologists created ever more powerful computers and software. None of these things were available in Amerika. They were all illegal, and persons caught with patent infringing works were jailed.

But Amerikans are rich and resourceful people. All these things served only to drive people underground, and create a black market for 'freedom goods', as they had become known. People took holidays in countries where ailments could be treated better and at a lower cost using treatments that were illegal in Amerika due to patent rights.

For many who didn't want to leave, innovations were published in foreign countries under pseudonyms. Ideas were readily accepted and expanded upon by others. It was proof positive that the patent system in Amerika was not required to promote innovation. Patents tried to fix something that wasn't broken. To be creative is human. All creations in history had been made without patent protections. Patent protections also didn't stop independent creativity: The creative simply moved or hid. They either physically left, or simply sent their ideas. In days gone by these same people had flocked to the promise of a free Amerika. A place were they could work without persecution - now that dream had moved elsewhere.

After the Patent Wars of the early 21st century, large parts of the world cut off from each other. Diplomatic relations were strained, and sanctions were imposed by the developed nations.
The problem was that countries had refused to acknowledge that Intellectual Property of Amerika should be protected in their country. Many of these countries felt that there was a higher duty to ensure that their people had access to ideas and technologies to better their own lives. Sure, some had played along for a while, but when it came to protecting their interests they made it known that they were soverign nations, and would not allow any other nation to set policy. For some there was threat of war, for others relations were severed.
Meanwhile in Amerika everything was patented until research ground to a halt. Rich corporations decided what ordinary people could do, say and even write.
Story patents had been reduced to such basic levels that any new story could be found to conflict with the basis for a patented story.
Medical research ground to a halt as most of the best therapies operated at the genetic level and all the genes and DNA strands had rightful owners.
Computer codes were patented as sequences of numbers, as well as the source code. This meant that any new algorithm that the compiler optimised might still result in patent infringement. Worse, judges had been known to allow for 'partial matches' in the numeric sequences, if there was also some overlap in functionality.
Music was patented much like story lines. Beats and rhythms were patented, note combinations and words in songs, until only artists hand-picked by the rights-owners could produce 'new' music.

The largest department in any organisation was the Legal Department. Every action, every interaction, every publication, every decision that any company made had to be sent through Legal.
In the pre-industrial days, labour had been the largest cost of production and retailing. With the advent of machine-based production labour costs plummeted. Materials and transporation costs were easily the dominant cost factors. History, however, repeats and labour was again the dominant cost component: the combined legal costs of the manufacturer, distributer, shipper and retailer was for many proucts close to half of the retail price.
That prices had increased faster than inflation while direct manufacturing costs had decreased was something that most people didn't want to talk about.

The C-nome Corporation has a patent on the DNA strands proven to be related to cancer. No product that treats cancer at the genetic level can be sold in Amerika unless they pay a royalty to the C-nome Corporation.

There's really only one treatment available, since the royalty demanded is rather large. A couple of private companies sell the treatment, but it's no cheaper: I've heard that 90% of the price you pay them is royalty. C-nome says all the money goes back into research.
The treatment is a long and painful process, taking many years and costing millions of dollars. But who can put a price on life? Sure, only the rich and those with very good medical insurance plans can afford the treatment, but still - C-nome researched this and made it possible.
My friend has cancer. He can't afford the treatment, so he's going in for the old fashioned chemo. The idea that we try and kill someone more slowly than the thing that is killing them is a crazy idea; but that's all he can afford. In a day and age when gene therapies are widely available it seems weird to use old fashioned treatments, but that's life.
I tell myself that these things have to be patented, otherwise there just wouldn't be any new innovations. And innovation is expensive. If C-nome needs to charge a premium it's because they need to get a return on their research, and they are working on new treatments. We can only thank the C-nome Corporation for what they've created and stop complaining. Of course the treatment is expensive, but like I said: who can put a price on your life? Isn't it worth spending every dime you have to keep living?
I've heard some people say that there are better, cheaper, faster and less painful treatments using the patented genes. I don't usually get involved in that kind of talk. I had heard, though, that a scientist down south had finished a simple one-day procedure. He claimed that it cost only a few thousand dollars and was 100% effective in his initial testing ... he was of course arrested and is awaiting trial for patent infringement. I can't believe this would work. Clearly if it worked, C-nome would be selling this new treatment instead. People would save millions of dollars, insurance premiums would plummet. It would have to be some kind of conspiracy to keep this innovation from humanity if it were true. Surely the C-nome Corporation wouldn't put it's billions of dollars of profits ahead of the pain and suffering of the human race?

The Wheel Corporation has a patent on the wheel. No product that uses a wheel can be sold in Amerika unless they pay a royalty to the Wheel Corporation.
There are only a few things that have wheels because, well, wheels are only sold by the Wheel Corporation.
We pretty much walk every where because there are not too many 'carriages'. The General Carriage Company made a deal with the Wheel Corporation - they cross-licenced their patents, so that both companies can sell Wheeled Carriages...but they are the only ones.
I have a dragbarrow for my garden - I'd like to upgrade to a wheelbarrow so I don't damage the ground so much when I garden. There's only one model of wheelbarrow, and it's not very sturdy. Wheel is the only company that can make one, and they don't build it quite as strong as the dragbarrows that just anyone can make. Some people go so far as to say that they build them cheap so you have to buy a new one every couple of years. I don't get involved in that kind of talk.
I tell myself that these things have to be patented, otherwise there just wouldn't be any new innovations. And innovation is expensive. If the Wheel Corporation needs to charge a premium it's because they need to get a return on their research, and they are working on new Wheel innovatons. We can only thank the Wheel Corporation for what they've created and stop complaining. Sure, the dragbarrows need to be a little sturdier and cheaper: they don't have a wheel and have to compete somehow.
I heard that a guy in his garage used a couple of wheels to make a self powered transporation device. He called it a 'bicycle' ... he was arrested and is awaiting trial for patent infringement. I think they destroyed this thing before anyone could see it.
I wonder why the Wheel Corporation won't make this thing? It sounded like a good idea... oh well, back to my dragbarrow. I need to get the harvest in before winter.

So who wins? Large corporations of course. While I have no problem with companies being of any size, nor do I have any problem with any company being aggressive in their expansion and marketing of their product lines. Corporations of any size exist because they fill a consumer need or desire, and as such are a 'good thing'. So, I don't blame corporations for asking for these protections, nor do I blame anyone for taking advantage of protections afforded to them. The problem I have is with the protections being granted.
So who loses? You do. As a member of the human race you will see innovations stifled...or more specifically you won't see certain innovations.
Large companies are filing patents at a tremendous rate. A patent costs in the order of $10,000 - as a private inventor, how many can you afford to file? For multi-billion dollar companies, this cost doesn't even register on the PnL sheet.

So what? At some point we will reach a critical balance, and I suggest it's not far off. At some point regular inventors will quit inventing in their garage. Why? Because they can't afford the lawyers. The North American legal systems protect only those that can afford legal fees. Predatory lawsuits are common, so if your new invention remotely looks like something already patented they will come and try to bully you into giving it to them. Forget it if your invention actually uses or expands on patented ideas, regardless of whether or not the owner is currently making use of the patent.
The end result is that only large corporations can generate innovations. Clearly this will have a stiffling effect on innovation. First and foremost, this decreases the pool of inventors, which will have the net effect of decreasing the number of innovations. However, even if you disagree with that, and suggest that corporations will be creative enough to generate every possible innovation, we are still left with less choice and less innovation.
Take as an example, company XYZ, who owns two competing products/patents for some 'problem' or consumer need. They will obviously choose to retail the one that is more beneficial to them, not the consumer. Since they own the rights to both, no one can sell the other option, even if they think of it independently - the consumer has just lost choice.

There are a lot of discussions these days about property laws. The problem is that they are talking about something that is abstract and granting physical controls.
Just a Fact: All knowledge is built on that which came before.
Just a Fact: You can't force someone to unlearn something.
Just a Fact: Property Rights stem from the fact that only one person can have a physical object at one time.
Just a Fact: Lots of people can have the same knowledge at the same time.

In the realm of physical things, like gold, land and cattle - physical things that can be owned - people sometimes disagree on who the owner is. Sometimes people get together and discuss who the rightful owner is. Sometimes one will appropriate it in the middle of the night. Sometimes they go before an arbitrator of some sort. Sometimes the discussions result in fisticuffs. Sometimes the right-hook is replaced by an M1 tank, or a bomb that raises a mushroom cloud.
Regardless of how they come to a conclusion, the end result of the discussions is that at least one side will not have the property in question.

In the realm of thoughts and ideas none of this exists historically. Here's a thought: e = m*c^2. Since we now both know this thought, ideas must be very unlike the physical property model described above. We both now have the knowledge - neither is deprived.

Intellectual Property laws create artificial scarcity. Those that promote IP state that it promotes innovation by offering economic incentives to invent.
The problem with this line of reasoning is that humans are a naturally inquisitive and creative race: The ability to form new thought, not the opposable thumb, is what differentiates humans from animals. Since we have been inventing since the dawn of time, and since we have been doing so without the benefit of these protections I suggest that they are, in fact, unnecessary. We're fixing something that isn't broken.
Over any length of time, Intellectual Property Rights only stagnate the prospects of intellectual advancement, and have the potential to actually grind new advances to a halt. In an age when plot lines are being patented we are quickly devolving into a state where a lawyer must vet every action you take. Taken to the extreme, once every basic idea is patented, there will be no room for new innovation. Imagine a world where the wheel, the lever, magnetism, and gravitational attraction have 'owners'. The 'owner' will have rights to charge rents that make new innovations prohibitive. People will say that all innovation will never be patented, since human innovation is boundless. Left to itself, this would be correct; however since all new ideas are built on existing ones, patents on lower-level ideas will prohibit further advances.

Yesterday there was a story on eweek about vulnerabilities in major applications, including products from Oracle, Symantec and Microsoft.
This, along with the Sony DRM fiasco, have been leading me to a thought: Perhaps Business and Gvt should be demanding that all their applications be open-source for the simple reason that the source can be reviewed. Not just reviewed internally but it might be reviewed externally by others as well. This means that closed-source with NDA'd client review is insufficient - the power of the code review lies in a combination of numbers and uncompromised reviewers (no conflict of interest, or 'management pressure' to accept).
I guess what I'm really wondering is: In the Security Age can large organisations afford to buy 'black boxes' and hope that they didn't just open a back door to their enterprise? Can organisations afford to buy closed-source software and assume the risk created by becoming the distributor of unverified code as Sony did? This little faux-pas has the potential to cost them trillions in direct damages (though I'm sure it won't) and further untold millions/billions(?) in lost revenues and profits.

While I'm no security expert I have an interest in the subject, and one of the key themes that keeps popping up is that any security based solely on secret functionality is doomed. The secret functionality will get cracked, and then all passwords, codes etc are useless. Today, any good crypto scheme is available for public scrutiny perhaps all enterprise software should be up for public scrutiny as well. I'm using 'enterprise software' in a very loose way here, and meaning anything that is in use on the corporate network, from router code, the OS, the desktop, the back-end servers , databases and (actual) enterprise software like human resource and financials.
While the big threats are definitely to the 'structural' software, like the OS, the router, the firewall, the tape-backup software etc, all of the 'user' applications may leave holes to be exploited as well. As more of these applications are available for corporate use via the internet we will see these vulnerabilities being uncovered and exploited ...and with closed-source software the organisation has no option to review and assure their own security.