Ed Gerck wrote:
> Take apart what I own is one thing -- publishing the results of taking
> it apart for a profit (fame or money) is another. The case of CB's RE
> is closer to the second, IMO.
publishing the results (for fame, not money) is not fundamental
difference, since everyone else could have gotten them himself by taking
it apart.
using the results for your own commercial purposes is a slightly
different animal and I agree that there should be some restrictions on
it.
I fully agree with the ORIGINAL intend of patent law here: make the
inventors publish what they know, in exchange for certain, limited
rights.
> I agree with this view. But, I am also prepared to accept the view of
> those that think otherwise. We live in a society that increasingly
> values local discourse, in spite of increasing globalization. We also
> accept multiple truths and multiple ways of knowing. If I am truly
> democratic, I must respect those that do not agree with what seems
> obvious to me -- I cannot claim to possess the whole truth.
I read too much Feyerabend to not agree on that. basically, I'd be happy
to leave them alone, if they'd do the same to me. seems they don't - the
cyberpatrol guys just requested my FTP logfile. probably because they
want to hunt down everyone who owns a copy of the hack. what for?
(too bad, that my xferlog is a link to /dev/null)
> As to the counter-example you ask, the general public profits by
> lack of disclosure of the algorithm that allows nuclear bombs
> to be made with 1 pound of enriched uranium. We have less
> nuclear powers.
you'd still need to get hold of a pound of enriched uranium. that's not
exactly sold in the supermarket. :)
