Re: Justification of IP message dated Mon, 24 Jul 2000 02:27:13+0200.
Another Free Software enthusiast jumps into the fray... Fortunately, my comments are rather shorter. ;) I realize I know little about this topic, so I will keep my response to questions, and the things I know. On Mon, 24 Jul 2000, Sourav K. Mandal wrote: Pythagoras would rightly demand a fee for use of his theorem Mathematical theorems are not creative works -- they are statements about reality. I will use Pythoagoras' theorem, and if he gives me crap about licensing, then I will rederive it (a relatively easy proof) and call it the "Mandal Theorem of Half-Rectangles." A concurrent patent! Ah, then you must at least disagree with IP regarding software, then? Or, at least, patents on software methods, which are currenly illegal in Europe, not not in America? Because any piece of software is nothing other than a set of mathematically formulatable statements -- theorems, if you will. See Turing Machines for more on this (oh, it's a lovely, exciting topic... ;) I can accept that you believe that the labor that went into creating that software entitles it's creator to rights over it, but how do you feel on patenting the method by which it is done? For example, some search algorithms (which are the heart of computer science) have been patented -- even though they were provably the best way to do their task. There was no way to implement an equal level of performance legally, because a certain party claimed to own the math behind it. What do you think of software patents? "Business method" patents? (For example, Amazon.com has patented the idea of the "associates program" where participating websites get a cut of anything bought at Amazon after following a link from their site.) Now, my questions: I (and clearly Francois-Rene, too) are confused by your idea of non-exclusive patents. How would this work? Finally, why do you believe IP should belong to the author forever? Surely, there's no motivation to create after you are dead! Luke Francl, mere student :) P.S.: Francois-Rene, I've read about the TUNES project before. It sounds fascinating! I hope your group succeeds.
Re: The Indeterminacy of Individual Economic Actions
Brian Doss wrote: My intuition agrees with you, at least given a five year time-scale. That is, if the default was to stay in SS, and people had to send in some form to opt out, then within a few years most people would, even though they won't do a similar think regarding their companies plan. This, with the default-as-informative-endorsement theory, suggests that people trust their government less than their company. It's not necessarily an issue of less trust- it could be that people easily see that SS is a poor investment (low or negative rate of return) and thus decide to opt out. No doubt that some will opt out because of the trust factor, but I think given the amount of information available on social security, people would be making more informed choices than simply reacting to gut "I dont trust you" instincts. Let us say that "opt out" means that you don't get any benefits, and your contribution is reduced down to the level required to maintain the current inter-generational redistribution. This is what I had in mind, but should have said. Robin Hanson [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://hanson.gmu.edu Asst. Prof. Economics, George Mason University MSN 1D3, Carow Hall, Fairfax VA 22030 703-993-2326 FAX: 703-993-2323
RE: Baseball salary caps?
On Wed, 26 Jul 2000 10:47:16 +0100, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I remember Bob Barro had an unusual take on salary caps. He suggested that an athletes' output is determined by his performance relative to the performance of other athletes not by his absolute level of performance. In increasing his (their) own performance, an athlete (a team) lowers other athletes (teams) output. Investing in skills that raise performance thus produces a neagtive externality. I believe that it is in the nature of people to judge their well being relative to the well being of those around them- which is why we can tend to feel "poor" even in the midst of material affluence. This feeling, however, does not reflect reality- because I feel poor does not mean I am materially worse off (or bad off). So long as I produce at the same level, nothing has changed in my case except that person B now has (or can do) more. What is being described here is natural competition, not a "negative externality"- someone gets better at producing good or service A, giving that person an advantage. So long as nobody else matches that advantage, wealth will accrue to that advantage, and everyone else will fail to make a profit. This is what drives normal businesses to continue innovating, etc etc. The negative externality argument here seems to be an apology for mediocrity/stagnation, and a defense of protectionism. Competitively determined wages provide an incentive for teams and players to overinvest in skills and the socially optimal wage is in fact lower than the competitive wage. "Socially optimal wage"? Barring interference with the market, the competitive wage IS the socially optimal wage. One needs, then, to look for reasons why the wage is higher than it "should" be- i.e. where are wages being artificially raised and subsidized. It is rather ridiculous to suggest that the free market wage could maintain itself at a higher than optimal rate without subsidy. Brian Doss ___ Say Bye to Slow Internet! http://www.home.com/xinbox/signup.html
