Before I jump in, just a good-neighbor advice: try avoiding top-posting, will you? And have your MUA/Webmailer generate correct References headers so that replies go to where they should be replying to. I reckon there's a good read on interacting with mls. Hope it helps! :D
"Ricky" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Protecting one's interest is preceisely the point of intellectual
> property. The reason why patents and copyrights are issued is to create
> value for the creator. Thus software piracry = theft since it
> compromises the rights of the creator.
While I have no dispute that piracy is theft, I can reason that patents
and copyrights were not meant just for the creator, but for the public
as well. The original notion of patents was to grant exclusive rights to
the inventor in exchange to have the invention go public. And in the
first place, that was okay. However, patents today are no longer used to
foster innovation: they are today's bargaining chip so you could take
more from your neighbor than you would have him do to you.
> As far as copyrights are concerned, maybe the main reason why there is a
> significant lag between the authors death and the expiry of the patent
> is to make sure that authors aren't killed-off :) ?
Fine. Have it your way.
But let me quote from my friend *DICT copyright*:
From The Free On-line Dictionary of Computing (09 FEB 02) [foldoc]:
copyright
<legal> The exclusive rights of the owner of the copyright on
a work to make and distribute copies, prepare derivative
works, and perform and display the work in public (these last
two mainly apply to plays, films, dances and the like, but
could also apply to software).
...
Use of copyright to restrict redistribution is actually
immoral, unethical, and illegitimate. It is a result of
brainwashing by monopolists and corporate interests and it
violates everyone's rights. Copyrights and patents hamper
technological progress by making a naturally abundant resource
scarce. Many, from communists to right wing libertarians, are
trying to abolish intellectual property myths.
So, economically speaking, there really shouldn't be any incentive in
utilizing protectionist devices in the pretext of fostering growth.
> Regarding Paolo's adding invention, he wouldn't be issued a patent for
> 1+1=2. No way, no how. As I said, concepts in themselves cannot be
> patented. If Paolo were to create a new addition method using some sort
> of technology, for instance a program that manipulates data in some way
> not conceived of before, and that would be of desirable value to others,
> then he would be in the right to receive a patent. The important
> distinction is that this is not a theoretical construct but a real world
> application that would need some sort of computer or similar device to
> be practical. It is not the knowledge that is patented but the method
> within the construct.
Still, your real-world construct is based on theoretical and rhetorical
rules. Thus, it naturally follows that when you grant exclusive rights
to the method, then you are indirectly granting exclusive rights (and
therefore restrict) the knowledge behind the method as well. This is why
the business world is full of corporate trade secrets; but then again,
they're for profit, not necessarily for the common good.
> Here's a real world case in point. The "Fast Fourier Transform" is a
> mathematical model which was used by the JPEG to create a compression
> algorithm for image data. The mathematical model cannot in itself be
> patented but its application to image compression contained within an
> application could be. Someone else using this model could create a
> completely new algorithm and application which could also be patented.
Following your model, that could be. Unfortunately that isn't how the
real world works, though...
> Judges are lawyers too :)
Nope, they cease to be lawyers when the take up the robe. They lose the
privilege to advocate in exchange for their responsibility to judge and
to be impartial. Lawyers can't decide on matters in a court of law; or
that would be your last outrage...
> Software for the common good -- no one is arguing against this. If you
> wish to donate your rights to an invention for the public good then
> congratulations. Patents are not passive, you have to apply for them and
> by not doing so, you are giving up your right to establish this as your
> property.
Wrong. You reckon copyrights, right? So why don't you use that,
notwithstanding that using one or the other anyway is a compromise. So
it just becomes a matter of choosing the lesser evil, huh?
> All patents become pulic knowledge once the patent is granted. You can
> no longer hide it since it resides in the patent office. You may get a
> copy of each and every patent registered with instructions to make all
> sorts of things. You will have to pay a license to the inventor though
> if you were to use his patent to manufacture a product for sale. If you
> don't know they exist, that's your own problem for not investigating.
You sure you can prove that in a court of law? You sure you can afford
the investigation if you are working on technologies involving several
publicly-known mechanisms? P'raps when you're a corporate dog, yes, you
can.
> The rest of your arguments tell me that you don't understand the meaning
> of the world "property." You can't take your land with you to the grave
> either but you have a right to eject undesirable tenants while you are
> alive :0
And the rest of yours means that you have such a primitive notion of
property that you fail to grasp the urgency at hand. Why do you think
people in Belgium, Poland and Denmark are marching the streets for? Are
they just another `hakot' crowd? As far as I know, Geeks anywhere can't
afford to bribe such a majority, unless they get very rich they can
afford their own geek palaces, or that they are keen enough to recognize
a rotten tomato from a basket of fresh ones.
I know what property is, mind you. In fact, I know of local folks having
problems with tenants that are similar to your example. Not to mention
being hounded by the BIR/IRS because of being not able to pay taxes on
time. Thus, I can only infer that to maintain such property is to only
hasten death. Is that what you want?
And yes, `property' is not a world. It is a word. And no, you can't own
property, because as such the ownership of land is just an abstraction
provided by governments so as to foster growth on these lands. The
government only gives you some rights to manage your land, but not to
totally control it; otherwise, you will have an eternal civil war
everywhere.
Thus, it also follows that you can't *own* ideas, given your assumption
that `knowledge is property'. That is why only copyrights can be
utilized to enforce authorship, but not ownership.
> As for the Golden Rule, property protection is not selfishness. What
> would be selfish would be to use someones idea and make money off it
> without rewarding him. Property is primarily about money. You are not
> free to exploit someone else's labour without just compensation. This is
> the essence of IP. No one is stopping you from donating your creation to
> the general public. This is what the FSF does with the GPL. But by their
> own rules, you are not allowed to use this without sharing the source
> code as well. I cannot make a commercial product out of their source
> code without including it this. Essentially, this is the price they
> require from your to ensure that the code is free.
So? Can't you have another racket to make money from besides trying to
pimp and divide and conquer?
> But to require everyone to behave in this manner is unjust and counter
> productive. Less innovation will occur if the inventor is forced to
> give his creation away for free.
How so? Can you give an example? Especially examples outside the
software industry? How can you be sure that your statements above are
correct? Afaik I know of inventions given away only to be improved upon
and changed altogether different from the original, and yet still remain
free.
--
ZAK B. ELEP <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> -- <http://zakame.spunge.org>
1024D/FA53851D 1486 7957 454D E529 E4F1 F75E 5787 B1FD FA53 851D
-- Running Debian GNU+Linux testing/unstable. GnuPG signed mail preferred.
pgpYN4FlcRo1J.pgp
Description: PGP signature
-- Philippine Linux Users' Group (PLUG) Mailing List plug@lists.q-linux.com (#PLUG @ irc.free.net.ph) Official Website: http://plug.linux.org.ph Searchable Archives: http://marc.free.net.ph . To leave, go to http://lists.q-linux.com/mailman/listinfo/plug . Are you a Linux newbie? To join the newbie list, go to http://lists.q-linux.com/mailman/listinfo/ph-linux-newbie
