>From: dmolnar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>To: Gary Jeffers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>CC: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Subject: Re: WSJ: Backdoor in MS WWW software
>Date: Tue, 18 Apr 2000 23:40:51 -0400 (EDT)
>
>
>
>On Sat, 15 Apr 2000, Gary Jeffers wrote:
>
> > What the 2 men did was a PERCEPTUAL crime. This crime is 100%
> > imaginary! However, the crime the U.S. will commit will be real.
> > INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY IS A STATE ARTIFACT! Without the state it
> > would not exist as we know it.
>
>Perhaps not. What would "intellectual property" look like without the
>State?
>
>If I know a special process for making widgets, and I keep it secret in
>my head, then does that qualify for some sense of "intellectual property"?
>It seems like it to me; the process has some value, it allows me to do
>something I otherwise could not (ie make widgets), and it may be called
>"intellectual" since it's only in my head. Extracting the process from my
>head by force then seems analagous to theft.
>
>The meaning of "intellectual property" seems broader these days, though,
>in that I can publish my process and then legally require others to
>refrain from using it without my permission by means of a patent. That
>legal requirement is where the State comes in for us now. Is this what
>you're getting at with "intellectual property is a state artifact" ?
>
>What happens in a world along the lines of Vinge's "The Ungoverned", in
>which legal codes are enforced by private organizations, and contracts
>are available? Can I create something like today's notion of
>"intellectual property" by making up the right kinds of contracts and
>not disclosing my process until these contracts are signed? If I can, are
>these contracts valid? If this model is at all legitimate, how does it
>differ from what we have now?
>
>On first pass, it seems to me that in this model, I can only really
>sanction someone who's actually signed a contract with me. If she gives
>away knowledge of my process to someone else, then I can't touch the
>someone else. A consequence of this seems to be that there can be no IBM
>patent server -- at least not without all the users
>first signing a contract to refrain from disclosing or using w/o
>permission the processes contained on the server.
>
>Thanks,
>-David
>
Sorry about the delay in responding. Intellectual property as we
know it is enforced by the state as copyrights, trademarks, and
patents. I was not referring to what anybody has in their head. I,
of course, do not condone the general forcing of people to give out
useful information.
The patent system in the U.S. was started as a method of encour-
aging inventors to produce useful ideas. However, the current think-
ing is that intellectual property is like all other kinds of property.
State enforcement of intellectual property causes problems: A
company may get a patent and just sit on it. Maybe, the idea would
obsolete a current money making product. I understand that some
companies won't allow other software products with the same "look
and feel". I believe that Lotus 123 is an example of this. Also,
there is talk that some companies are claiming property in small
strings of computer code. There is a small movement on the Internet
to stop this as well as "look and feel" assertions.
Also, RSA and Chaum with his patents on his e$ algorithms are
a familiar example of this. Who knows what these property assertions
have cost the world.
There is another problem in that in order to enforce these
imaginary claims, the state claims the right and necessity to use
real force and violence. Nothing but a state could use force on a
grand scale to suppress ideas. Anything that did so would take on
the properties of a state.
Yours Truly,
Gary Jeffers
BEAT STATE!!!
________________________________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com
