Richard Dobson wrote: > On 20/09/2011 22:24, Fons Adriaensen wrote: > Interesting choice of words. You say "agree", I would say "recognise". > Do "they" put it to a vote? My thoughts (which you appear to equate with > "things") are my own, and if I choose to share them with anyone else > that is my choice, and their privilege. > >> The alternative is living isolated, or having to physically >> protect and defend your 'property' all the time, which sort >> of defeats the purpose. >> > > What purpose is that? Who decides what the purpose is? >
Unless one rejects inheritance taxes, wealth taxes, etc., etc. one is left with the fact that one has accepted a situation where one has 'a balance'. Perhaps the worst imaginable situation ... except all the others ... but there it is. Akin to "all property belongs to the monarch and one holds it under licence", but nowadays "society" not the "monarch". Those taxes pay for the police who I hope -if vainly- may catch your burglars and return your property. I nearly said, also, unless one believes patents should be eternal. But that would be false. A patent is a trade off. You can keep your invention secret (and unprotected) or publish/patent it and receive limited protection. (As for anthrax, IIRC at the time the hype was that 'Cipro' was "the only licensed product". And that fitted with Sampo's experiences. Bacterial resistance is a totally different argument: Anyway I read an article recently that it is politically incorrect to go into the alleged causus belli for an ilegal war of aggression, when it was in fact a 'home goal'. My argument was about licensing not weaponising.) This may all be OT, but if: -ambisonics had developed twenty years later -if there had been no patents on it would the World have been different? Michael _______________________________________________ Sursound mailing list Sursound@music.vt.edu https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound
