On Thu, 22 Jun 2006 10:56:51 -0400, Tony Harminc <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Jay Maynard wrote: > >> > "to promote Progress of Science and useful Arts, >> > by securing for limited Times to Authors and >> > Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective >> > Writings and Discoveries" >> > >> > The *objective* was to foster innovation, NOT to reward people. >> >> Innovation is the objective. Reward is the mechanism. Without >> the mechanism, the objective will not be achieved. > >That's quite possible, though I doubt very much that there is any actual >evidence for this frequent claim. Were Leonardo da Vinci or J.S. Bach or >countless other creators deterred by the lack of copyrights and patents? And >even if the claim is true, the current system of exclusive rights is far >from being the only possible mechanism. > And in an earlier note on this thread you wrote, in reply to this statement from Charles Mills: >> Why does IP protection (patent, copyright, TM, and trade >> secrets) exist? It is so that people can be rewarded for >> their creativity. > >On this point you are quite wrong. IP protection exists (and >constitutionally so, in the USA) "to promote the progress of >science and the useful arts". That it "[secures] for a limited >time to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their >respective rights and discoveries" is a side effect or necessary >implementation detail, and not the reason for its existence. Yes, the US Constitution does say what is quoted above. To call the exclusive rights clause a side effect or necessary implementation detail makes no sense to me. Tom Marchant ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
