Slashdot Mirror
Feature:Why ideas should not be property
Here's an interesting essay by Benjamin Tucker, that's very relevant to the free / open-source software movement. It predates Richard Stallman and the FSF by a good 85 years, and gives better arguments against the whole notion of ideas as property than I have ever seen expressed elsewhere. I've excerpted the relevant parts below.
- For the fourth of these monopolies, however, - the patent and copyright monopoly, - a more plausible case can be presented, for the question of property in ideas is a very subtle one. The defenders of such property set up an analogy between the production of material things and the production of abstractions, and on the strength of it declare that the manufacturer of mental products, no less than the manufacturer of material products, is a laborer worthy of his hire. So far, so good. But, to make out their case, they are obliged to go further, and to claim, in violation of their own analogy, that the laborer who creates mental products, unlike the laborer who creates material products, is entitled to exemption from competition.
I take it that, if it were possible, and if it had always been possible, for an unlimited number of individuals to use to an unlimited extent and in an unlimited number of places the same concrete things at the same time, there never would have been any such thing as the institution of property. Under those circumstances the idea of property would never have entered the human mind, or, at any rate, if - it had, would have been summarily dismissed as too gross an absurdity to be seriously entertained for a moment. Had it been possible for the concrete creation or adaptation resulting from the efforts of a single individual to be used contemporaneously by all individuals, including the creator or adapter, the realization, or impending realization, of this possibility, far from being seized upon as an excuse for a law to prevent the use of this concrete thing without the consent of its creator or adapter, and far from being guarded against as an injury to one, would have been welcomed as a blessing to all, - in short, would have been viewed as a most fortunate element in the nature of things. The raison d'etre of property is found in the very fact that there is no such possibility, - in the fact that it is impossible in the nature of things for concrete objects to be used in different places at the same time. This fact existing, no person can remove from another's possession and take to his own use another's concrete creation without thereby depriving that other of all opportunity to use that which he created, and for this reason it became socially necessary, since successful society rests on individual initiative, to protect the individual creator in the use of his concrete creations by forbidding others to use them without his consent. In other words, it became necessary to institute property in concrete things.
But all this happened so long ago that we of today have entirely forgotten why it happened. [...] And so it has come about that [...] most of us are not only doing what we can to strengthen and perpetuate his [property's] reign within the proper and original limits of his sovereignty, but also are mistakenly endeavoring to extend his dominion over things and under circumstances which, in their pivotal characteristic, are precisely the opposite of those out of which his power developed.
All of which is to say in briefer compass, that from the justice and social necessity of property in concrete things we have erroneously assumed the justice and social necessity of property in abstract things, - that is, of property in ideas, - with the result of nullifying to a large and lamentable extent that fortunate element in the nature of things, in this case not hypothetical, but real, - namely, the immeasurably fruitful possibility of the use of abstract things by any number of individuals in any number of places at precisely the same time, without in the slightest degree impairing the use thereof by any single individual. Thus we have hastily and stupidly jumped to the conclusion that property in concrete things logically implies property in abstract things, whereas, if we had had the care and the keenness to accurately analyze, we should have found that the very reason which dictates the advisability of property in concrete things denies the advisability of property in abstract things. We see here a curious instance of that frequent mental phenomenon, - the precise inversion of the truth by a superficial view.
Furthermore, were the conditions the same in both cases, and concrete things capable of use by different persons in different places at the same time, even then, I say, the institution of property in concrete things, though under those conditions manifestly absurd, would be.' infinitely less destructive of individual opportunities, and therefore infinitely less dangerous and detrimental to human welfare, than is the institution of property in abstract things. For it is easy to see that, even should we accept the rather startling hypothesis that a single ear of corn is continually and permanently consumable, or rather inconsumable, by an indefinite number of persons scattered over the surface of the earth, still the legal institution of property in concrete things that would secure to the sower of a grain of corn the exclusive use of the resultant ear would not, in so doing, deprive other persons of the right to sow other grains of corn and become exclusive users of their respective harvests; whereas the legal institution of property in abstract things not only secures to the inventor, say, of the steam engine the exclusive use of the engines which he actually makes, but at the same time deprives all other persons of the right to make for themselves other engines involving any of the same ideas. Perpetual property in ideas, then, which is the logical outcome of any theory of property in abstract things, would, had it been in force in the lifetime of James Watt, have made his direct heirs the owners of at least nine-tenths of the now existing wealth of the world; and, had it been in force in the lifetime of the inventor of the Roman alphabet, nearly all the highly civilized peoples of the earth would be today the virtual slaves of that inventor's heirs, which is but another way of saying that, instead of becoming highly civilized, they would have remained in the state of semi-barbarism. It seems to me that these two statements, which in my view are incontrovertible, are in themselves sufficient to condemn property in ideas forever.
Governmental protection of IP slows progress because
Whole branches of research are isolated until patents expire.
This means that, even if a patent were licensed in order to produce a derivative work, eventually the
chain of patents becomes so cumbersome that no further progress is profitable or practical for anyone.
Sounds neat in theory, but it is not reality. Patents are used more effectively by large corporations to protect themselves from individual upstarts. Large corporations have the resources to acquire many patents and protect them in the legal realm. As an individual, I certainly can't afford the overhead involved in protecting my ideas through the legal system.
I thought of that argument a long time ago. (The fact that I think that it is bogus is irrelevant).
I own that thought, and you must pay me royalties to use it. I gave you no consent, so you should also be giving me some extra in compensation etc.
p.s. Here's for another thought (I give this one away royalty free!!)
Yes, you DO own the thoughts in you head. But if you tell me one of your thoughts, then it becomes a thought in MY head, and I own that thought. I, like you, have the right to tell it to other people, and the right not to tell it to other people -- but I don't have the right to control the thoughts in someone else's head, since I don't own them. Quite frankly, the original idea that patents and copyrights are NEEDED so that people will be unafraid to publish no longer exists -- enough people would continue if copyrights were abolished.
Because many/most of the truly great ideas have come about from the brilliance of a given individual, not for economic reward.
If 'innovations' shouldn't be outlawed, why not 'innovate' by blowing up M$HQ???
Not all innovations are good -- some should be outlawed, some must be outlawed, some other ones actually are.
In essence, that's what proprietary software companies do; by only releasing compiled programs they effectively keep their ideas secret while selling the rights for people to use them.
Law or no law, they can do this as long as they keep the source secret and as long as decompilers are not very useful.
> What if instructions for the ATOM Bomb were public domain...
They are. And in certain countries the bombs themselves are yours to buy cheap.
Be afraid.
> If I come up with a killer Idea, or a program that people will pay tons o money for.... then Whats wrong with me making some cash from that...
Nothing, but in practice it's hard for an individual to do that with software. I find the cooperative development model more exciting and productive, and find that I can get decent money doing that too.
> I feel its morally more right to get paid for ideas than to get paid for stuff. Think about it, manufactured stuff is usually there because someone in a position of power broke subservient people's backs to get their stuff out.
True but if you prevent me from doing work by preventing me from using an idea (i.e. software patents on algorithims) you have injured me.
> Private property is legitimate because God owns
> everything, and he extends to us the right to
> own things as stewards -- as his representatives.
I suppose God told you personally?
Exactly right!
:(
Unfortunately the government itself rarely takes actions for the cause of "public good"
Sometimes they are beneficial. Sometimes they are not. They may even blow up in your face.
The problem with software patents to be exact is that they last about 10 times longer than they are effectively useful. (other than to stifle innovation and extract money)
as soon as you reach an inopportune moment in your life and lack money, we will be happy to sweep your carcass into the street :)
I was reading a recent Chemical and Engineering News (sorry, no free web edition, Chemists are stingy with their "IP") talking about Monsanto's recent troubles. The EU hates these genetically engineered seeds and their products. How many U.S. farmers want to plant crops that they won't later be able to sell around the world? Monsanto also makes the Bovine Growth Hormone, which has caused uproar here and elsewhere, and hasn't decreased the price of milk, as promised. Big companies think that if they spend enough money on PR they can shove unnecessary chemicals, nuclear power, and genetic engineered crops down our throats. Well, they're wrong!
I think the point of arguments against IP is that if someone else comes up with an idea on their own, they are denied rights to use it if it's already been thought of and protected under IP law.
It's not about being forced to give away your ideas -- it's about being allowed to use ideas others have thought of.
So what you're saying is that even though they spent millions of dollars developing their seeds, they shouldn't be able to make up their losses, because you think IP is wrong?
Well, that's really been the problem with socialism. The idea of a centralized governmental power is in opposition to the fundamental ideals of socialism. The CCCP is (was) an oxymoron. What has always been created in the past was a socialist economy with a monopolist (or maybe semi-democratic) government. The two really are incompatible - as history has shown.
Should artists be forced to give away their
paintings?
This is not at all the same thing as ownership of concrete objects. You can make a perfect copy of a computer file, but not of a painting. Forcing the artist to give away their paintings would deprive them of the painting, this is not true with abstract things like computer programs.
If stealing an artists painting is stealing his labour, then stealing(copying) a computer file is multiplying his labour.
I hate to break it to you, but none of those pay the bills, and none of those are likely to make up for the loss one would feel after being ripped off like that.
If soneone invented a better wheel, it is likely that they aren't an author and as a result writing a book doesn't come naturally to them. All the time they spent developing their tire, they weren't thinking "I'm going to get ripped off and write a book about it." They were thinking, I'm going to manufacture this and make millions.
As far as talk shows go, they may make you a household name, but they sure as hell won't make millions off of that.
I'm not saying that if GM ripped off someones tire design, they would be begging for change on the streets. There would be many opportunities for them to cash in on their misfortune. However nothing will ever make up for the original opportunity lost.
That would have to mean depriving him of his work, this does not have to be the case with abstract objects. Abstract objects like computer files can be copied without affecting him, in other words, his work can multiplied. Work once, benefit for ever.
..as in, sampling another artist's work for your own benefit while not giving him the slightest bit of recognition (read: compensation). In this instance, a concept of IP *must* exist, and for the benefit of the entire music community, I might add.
Seriously, would it make any sense for me to be allowed to re-release say, a Jackson 5 record and make money off of it? Or even use parts of their songs (the degree to which they have been manipulated is irrelevant, I'd say) in some concoction which I call my own? NO. Intellectual property must exist, especially in art/music.
Of course, this applies not only to the original sound recording involved, because legally a "song" is defined by its inherent structure of melody, lyrics, etc. (read: the *idea* which exists at its core).
Although I personally often relate to quasi-socialist ideals, I find that the IP issue must not stretch beyond its useful limits. If my vote means anything, I'd say that I like the fact that we're bound to give credit where credit is due, and to respect the boundaries which a particular creator wishes to impose on his/her product.
Admittedly, in the realm of science, however, the benefits of such restrictions seem to dwindle, if they can even remain at all in tact. The usefulness of IP laws then begins to serve the capitalist ideal, and not the public good. But wouldn't we have to make such distinctions on a case-by-case basis? Any government would fail at this task miserably... there's just too much stuff out there to consider.
So in all I guess that things are pretty much fine the way that they are, except for the fact that the gov't gives its (technology oriented) patents away much too freely. If only we could devise an intelligent means of securing or denying these patents, then I'd say that we have an extremely just and fair IP policy.
-ad
I agree with your basic argument, however there are some points I'd like to make about your examples.
First of all, anyone can clone a RedHat CD and sell it for profit. However RedHat has survived, mainly because people recognize the work they put into their distribution and how much they've given back to the community, and they buy the CD from RedHat instead of someone else. RedHat is an example of how altruism can still be profitable.
However your first example about the necessity of IP for small businesses to compete with big ones was right on the money. Without IP, there's no way a person or small group of people can turn their idea into a successful business, simply because big companies with a lot more resources will clone their program.
Glad to see someone setting the record straight. It is nice to see a review of true US history and have facts to back it up. I can't wait to see your repost.
you learn something new everyday.
The quote this essay is based on presents the argument that ideas should not be classed as intellectual property (ie. exempt from competition). It did not even pretend to claim that material products (such as software) shouldn't be considered intellectual property.
Of course, then the argument becomes "is software a material product". The answer is yes, just as much as a book is - it's just a bit easier to transport. It certainly isn't a physical (mechanical) product like the CD or hard disk it's stored on, but it is a material product. It's the end result of the abstract ideas in your head.
It's easy to take any quote out of context and twist it to suit your needs. What the author of this quote were arguing and what Richard Stallman is encouraging are quite different beasts.
Personnaly, I love Free Software. It's one of the most revolutionary ideas in software philosophy today. The end result of it is better, more accessible software which is what we all want.
Unfortunately, this quote isn't arguing the same point as the FSF.
One of the greatest thinkers who created our heritage was Thomas Paine. I don't have a lot of detail about this, but he was evidently an open source or public license advocate, encouraging others to reprint his works and ideas freely, and not expecting royalties. 'Royalty' was anathema to him. His 'Rights of Man' criticized royalty so effectively that his publisher was imprisoned, which means he couldn't get any royalty checks anyway, and he barely made it out of the country (England) to escape a worse fate himself.
Noah Webster, who lobbied to get the US copyright system in place, stands in strong contrast to Paine. The right wing now puts him up as a hero,
with his picture on the screen while patriotic music plays and quotes from him against separation of church and state are read by the preacher. They quote an error in the Brittanica that says he served in the Continental Army during the Revolution -- he didn't; he sat out the Revolution as a student at Yale. They list him as a proponent of the US Constitution -- he was, but probably because it would make it easier for him to become a fat cat, with copyrights and government printing contracts, etc. He became upset with democracy and withdrew from public life in disgust when he saw Presidential races with more than one candidate and that they were actually going to criticize each other. But his dictionary set the standard for American English, which is unfortunate, because Franklin's ideas were probably better, and Webster prospered long by publishing and selling under copyright the de facto standard that he had derived from the public expressions of his contemporaries.
Not genes, per se, but strains of plants that MONSANTO created, with THEIR resources, in order to provide YOU with better products, so that THEY can be more competive in the market place...why not? It's not like we're handing the key to ALL food production, just the right to use the results of THEIR research to THEIR benefit.
Tucker was an "individualist anarchist", and the question of how to interpret the individualist anarchists politically is the source of an enormous argument between anarchists of the right and left today. See An Anarchist FAQ for the left's version, and the Anarchist Theory FAQ for the right's version.
Anyway, there is certainly such a thing as socialism outside of Marxism.
No, this isn't just an inane comment...
There MAY be a way around this. My father has recently been working with some Dutch consultants, who've taken it upon themselves to go around third world countries, and warn farmers of this.
They've devised some sort of cross-breeding (pollination? whatever - I can't remember the term they used) which allows farmers to plant the GM corn alongside the native, weaker, variety. The result? the next generation of corn from the native stalks are cross-bred (naturally) with the GM corn, with all the advantages, but with the ability to germinate.
Since the gene is modified, it's not patented anymore (and since you've got a zillion native crop hybrids and whatnot to consider, they can't go around patenting every possible crossbreed that comes up).
I'm still looking for a webpage for this. But this means tactics by corporations can be countered by free dissemination of information. (a bit parallel to OSS goals, I think).
The problem now, is countering FUD. As always.
No, he couldn't possibly mean he thinks people shouldn't do things that he thinks are wrong, could he? You must've misunderstood.
They did it in order to provide ME with "better" products? They could've asked first...
Anyway, deal then - I'll forgo the products and they can forget the IP.
"If I spend a year of effort to produce a product, and somebody who has spent no effort either leeches the source or cracks the binary and distributes it, then they have most certainly harmed me by cutting off my rightful compensation for my efforts. It is most certainly within the purpose of the law to prevent this."
It's only your "rightful compensation" because currently the law gives you rights to restrict distribution and you would carry out the work in expectation of doing so. That doesn't justify continuing with such laws. In the absence of those laws you would not expect to be able to restrict distribution and if you chose to put in the work knowing that your return would be limited then that would be your problem, just as with any other unprofitable field of endeavour. And of course, if you could find a way to make money out of it in the absence of those laws then that would be your "rightful expectation" in those circumstances.
At this point you may argue that you are deprived of the benefit you would have received by controlling all use of your idea.
No, no....getting compensated for the VALUE it provides you. The only reason control enters the picture is because of an inherent tendency to take something for nothing. What we're talking about here is an equitable exchange of value, nothing more. If I write a program that allows businessess a greater degree of effiency, and if being able to conduct your business, say, 10% more efficiently is of ZERO value to you, then this is exactly the percentage of the software you should be using. ZERO.
The question is NOT "how much did it cost to reproduce the software?", the question is "how much is it worth to you to be able to conduct your business more efficiently?" In other words, "How much are you willing to pay me if I can provide the means for you to increase your profits, provide a new service, expand your market, or increase your efficiency?" What difference does it make if it involves the purchase of a software program, or an ongoing fee to pay for a few pounds of salt that you can throw over your shoulder each month?
Just wait until the Einstein Estate sues everyone :)
I will have to beg to differ here. Ideas are the lifeblood of a business and for most of us,
comprise the true value of our existence. If the tricks for efficiently implementing a
task in softare were obvious or simple, a machine could do so without our aid. By your argument, we would all then
be valueless to society. Our progress as people has hinged on our ability to continually abstract and automate our activities so that
we spend our time on "higher level" tasks, or in other words, come up with ideas.
Think about it, in the computer world, the original coders organized the machine symbols and switched individual bits into memory. Then someone implemented assemblers, so that higher level assembler code could be used.
Then still higher level languages appeared and continue to do so today. Each iteration brings us closer to direct implementation of our ideas at an abstract level.
These arguments (if made 30-40 years ago) would claim that all of the value is in flipping the switches. I can't imagine that you would say that today. Nor in 20 years if computers can compile your natural language speech into code will you feel that coding in C has any intrinsic value. IDEAS are EVERYTHING !!! Cheers, Matt
Under the circumstances, I think it's a bit late for your advice of a good book (even a very good book) to be much help to him.
Personally I have no exhaustive answer to those questions, but I definitely can't accept the view that the creator of a poem or a sonata or a program has no more fundamental property rights with regard to it than does the first passerby who notices it.
No one has an exhaustive anwser because there is none. If you have no fundamental property to something you've "created" then neither would this first passerby.
Basically what all of this does is create more value for something that in of itself has no value. What good are your ideas if you can't use them for anything that anyone else cares about? None of course, unless you decide that you own it and others that can make something useful from it, must pay you for the idea.
Sorry, I can follow the more usual argument that less people would develop ideas if they couldn't assure themselves of a financial reward, but the idea that they would develop ideas and then keep them secret throws me completely...
I'm trying to imagine that before copyrights were introduced people wrote music which they hoarded to themselves and never played for anyone, muttering "if I don't own it, then why should I give it to you?" "why in the world should I tell anyone I wrote it?"
Do you seriously think this is likely behaviour, or have I missed your point?
duh\!
You make money from it not by artificially restricting the free flow of ideas, but by providing something that only you can provide: a service or concrete product based on your great idea (and the great ideas of others before you).
And what can an independant software developer do that Microsoft (or another large company) and $4,000,000 can't? You seem to have missed the point of his article. If you're a suit, and you're in charge of buying a product, do you buy from Microsoft, or do you buy from "Jim's Insignificant Software Company?"
If you answered Jim, you don't know the business world very well. It doesn't matter whether or not Jim came up with the idea, that's not the kind of thing the suits look into. They buy from a company they know they can hold accountable.
So here we have poor Jim who spent a lot of his personal time coming up with a revolutionary idea, and then a lot of his personal resources to get his product to the market, only to go under within a year because Microsoft integrated his idea into one of their products (You know the suits like integration). That's tyranny if you ask me. Maybe, if Jim gets lucky, Microsoft will buy him out instead of crushing him.
Should artists be forced to give away their paintings? No. Should authors have to give you a copy of their books? No. Should a farmer have to give you his produce? No. These are all socialistic concepts.
I see this SAMN argument over and over again, and it is simply wrong. There are apparently a large majority of people completely devoid of any critical thinking skills. How is a piece of food or a book comparable to software? If I have a book and I give you that book, I no longer have it. THAT is why books are property. I can have some software, make you a copy and I still have my own copy.
You views are relics and they will pass away in time.
traditionally, mathematics was considered a branch of philosophy. go look up the word "sophist" in a dictionary.
Strangely enough I don't care what the United States was founded upon, was it supposed to be relevant to the issue in some way?
Are you going to run through "founding principles" for all the other nations now as well?
What if instructions for the ATOM Bomb were public domain... I mean I know
this is slightly extreme... but, nonetheless, true... If I come up with a killer Idea, or a program that people will
pay tons o money for.... then Whats wrong with me making some cash from that... I feel its morally more
right to get paid for ideas than to get paid for stuff. Think about it, manufactured stuff is usually there
because someone in a position of power broke subservient people's backs to get their stuff out.
They ARE, go to a library. This is the point the ideas are not property. The materials and the actual creation of material objects is where it become property. For your example, the plans for an atomic bomb are the easy part, getting or producing the parts are the problems.
Monsanto has a valid claim - plant patents have been in existance LONG before genetic engineering. Many plants have been illegal to propogate aseuxally for a long time. The only thing that genetic engineering changes is that these plant can breed true sexuallly.
This viewpoint that IP is a bad idea is a complete crock. IP provides a POWERFUL incentive to create. Go to Amazon.com and look at their variety. How much of that would exist without royalties to the hardworking authors? 0.01%.
Look at the Open Source movement - how much of that would exist without Copyright laws? Zilch. Open Source depends on authors being sure their code won't be commercially coopted - enforced by Copyright Laws?
What Pharmaceutical company is going to invest the $1 billion needed to bring a nw drug to market if they know withing weeks it will be mass produced and imported back into the US by a third world low cost producer?
The modern era makes copying easy, and the value of the physical implementation of 'software' in the broadest sense nearly zero. How are we going to be sure that the best and brightest amoung us are encouraged to make use of their talents if not by IP????
Oh, good. So I now keep the idea secret internally, and merely sell the result of the work in some obscured form externally? (like Mirosoft)? But if I can COPYRIGHT it, or GPL it, I can freely distribute it?
With your plan if my company goes under the idea is lost forever.
God, this is EXACTLY the way things were in the 16th century - guilds kept 'trade secrets', and the pace of technological progress was SLOW.
READ SOME HISTORY DAMMIT.
This article is the biggest piece of poorly thought out baloney ever posted on this web site.
Think about it - if it weren't for copyright law WE COULDN'T HAVE GPL!!!!
"The assumption being made by IP laws is that ideas have a unique origin, but this is often not the case. The airplane was independently discovered by several people within a few years of the Wright brother's discovery."
Your premise is COMPLETELY FALSE. Patent law includes numerous mechanisms for addressing the issue of priority in cases where multiple parties come up with the same invention at nearly the same time. Patent Law doesn't care how the invention is made, or that many people have made it nearly at the same time.
The Patent Law ALSO addresses your premise that most inventions are incremental by setting a standard for 'unobviousness' and 'novelty' in the law.
All inventions are the result on building on prior work. Og the Caveman is NOT going to invent a RISC CPU. That requires a tremendous infrastructure to develop. BUT WITH YOUR PLAN WE WOULD NEVER GET THAT INFRASTRUCTURE BECAUSE THERE WOULD BE NO REWARD FOR THE MILLIONS OF INVENTIONS TO GET IT.
Didn't MS originally concoct NetBEUI for the purpose of promoting their proprietary pseudostandards?
And to think, I actually enjoyed the net more two years ago before the flood gates opened :)
In practice, I find that things are different from what you believe. The great god Market favors those without Principle. Who is more successful, who the more rewarded by the system, the man who conducts his business ethically, or the who decides to win at all costs? The Free Market tends to reward those who have no ethical tethers to tie them back. Witness the history of any company to achieve monopoly status -- the road to market success is littered with the bodies of fallen competitors, many with daggers protruding from their backs.
Are you quite insane? I would not have your need be my burden, if you don't mind. This sortof philosophy puts the burdens of the unable on the able, and punishes ability. I cannot even believe you said this. What country are you from? Would you like to receive only as much as you 'need'? Can you objectively define 'need'?
Unfortunately, the big businesses are now designing seeds that will produce useless offspring when cross-bred with anything else. Not only does this make it disastrous for a farmer to put the propietary and non-proprietary varieties in close proximity, it gives all the customer's neighbors strong incentive to go with the market leader.
It's marketing by pollution, marketing by biological warfare. Just like what software businesses do.
Capitalism doesn't appeal to you anymore? Do you work for a living? Do you have a better system? He's not 'leeching' off of you; he's providing you a service, (a place to sleep), for which you pay him. You are free to not pay him and to no longer expect his services; this is the way life is and should be.
Hold on there sport! I'm a healthcare professional here in the states and I work with a lot of displaced Canadian health care workers who have come here because problems with the Canadian systems, or for various other reasons. I hear nothing but horror stories from these Canadians. People there often wait for months to have elective surgery or other procedures, suffering miserably while they wait. Often, they simply don't have access unless the condition is life threatening. There are health care strikes
Meanwhile, patients with absolutely no insurance here in the states don't have to wait (All "not-for-profit" hospitals must provide some charity care, or just pop into your neighborhood academic medical center). Moreover, I have personally been involved in the care of several "refugees" of the Canadian health care system which left them to suffer or die without recourse. Sad indeed. Granted, our capatalistic health care system has its share of problems, but I would not want to see it become more like the Canadian system!
As the Americal health care system becomes even more capitalistic (witness the growth of "managed care" systems such as HMO's), more attention is paid to cutting costs, but at the same time the customer's satisfaction must be kept in mind (witness backlashes against some of the crappy HMO's). An HMO that provides lousy service has the possibility of being taken out of business by a competitor. In Canada, there is no competition in health care, so there is really no incentive to be responsive to their patients (consumers).
Thus, if the fitness function (which determines survival in our economic genetic algorithm) adequately reflects consumers' interests, then the enormous power of raw capitalism (fueled by powerful forces such as greed) can be bridled and our chariot far outpaces the mule of socialism.
By fine tuning the fitness functions (e.g. laws of business), our government can tweak the capitalistic machine to everyone's advantage (of course, this does not always happen).
Darwinism (GA's in computer sci lingo, evolution for the biologists out there) works for optimising complex systems that have large number of parameters (e.g. jet design). There is no question that this works better for economics (and other complex systems) than a single monolithic entity slowly perturbing one parameter at a time. You must put a lot of thought into defining your fitness functions (e.g., be careful what you ask for because you will probably get it!). Even the fitness functions (laws) that we propose and pass do have a (less efficient) evolutionary mechanism built in.
So, in summary: capitalism good, socialism bad.
Seed Pirating? "Pirating" is a bastardized term for "doing what we don't like" and smacks of jedi mind tricks in this case.
This type of thing worries me. Is it human nature to become maniacally controlling once an opportunity arises? Monsanto is playing fast and loose with our food supply and must be stopped.
"We're all sons of bitches now." -Oppenheimer
Socialists of all parties are ultimately concerned with the power of the state over individuals.
Statism of left or right ultimately leads to fascism.
History proves that socialism can only achieve its aims of redistribution of wealth and promotion of equal mediocrity for all through state controlled violence and coercion.
Socialism is NEVER good for the any of the individuals of a society in the mid-long term.
Either they become lazy on state benefits until of course there is nobody left doing productive work, or they have the productive life crushed out of them, living entirely for the benefit of other people (if they are the productive ones).
The facts are here:
l
"We can hardly cease to admire writers such as George Orwell (1984) and Aldous Huxley (Brave New World) for their combining superb writing craft with dire political cautions. But in hindsight we can lament the fact their imaginings for the future fell short of the mark.
Indeed, their portraits of overarching and Byzantine state control only hint at the bizarre and intricate machine into which the modern state in Canada has sadly metamorphosed..."
http://www.zolatimes.com/V3.4/crapshoot.html
Other articles on Canada:
http://www.zolatimes.com/writers/topolewski.htm
put down your crack-pipe for a second, you boob.
"anti-trust vultures"? (Please! to you too...)
oh, and capitalism is "moral"? capitalism is about making money. plain and simple. to say it is "moral" is nothing but outright stupidity. making money is not evil. but to be so twisted as to equate it with morality just might be evil.
hmmm... the ongoing development of linux is not based at all on the capitalist dogma that you obviously love so well, and it is very dynamic and productive. so where do you fit THAT fact into your boxed-in ayn rand world of greed?
and, so much of the recent activity in the US economy of late has been caused by huge amounts of people flocking to buy computers, *to get on the internet* and for very little other reason than that. hey, crack-head, the historical origins and foundational lifeblood protocols and programs of the internet have NOTHING to do with capitalism. NOTHING. in fact, they are the very antithesis of capitalist mores!
man, we should HOLD you down and force you to smoke the rest of whatever weird shit you been smokin'!
> "The assumption being made by IP laws is that ideas have a unique origin, but this is often not the case. The airplane was independently discovered by several people within a few
> years of the Wright brother's discovery."
> Your premise is COMPLETELY FALSE. Patent law includes numerous mechanisms for addressing the issue of priority in cases where multiple parties come up with the
> same invention at nearly the same time. Patent Law doesn't care how the
> invention is made, or that many people have made it nearly at the same time.
Precisely the point. Why *should* there be a priority system if all the people involved developed the idea independently. If the idea was "stolen" (not independently developed) then
trade secrets law still apply. If the idea can be developed by many people independently, then what should *one* person gain exclusivity on the idea?
> The Patent Law ALSO addresses your premise that most inventions are incremental by setting a standard for 'unobviousness' and 'novelty' in the law.
The uncertainty principle is not obvious, yet it was independently formulated by Heisenberg, Schrodinger, and a few other scientists at about the same time. Sometimes the time is right for an idea and it just appears.
> All inventions are the result on building on prior work. Og the Caveman is NOT going to invent a RISC CPU. That requires a tremendous infrastructure to develop. BUT WITH
> YOUR PLAN WE WOULD NEVER GET THAT INFRASTRUCTURE BECAUSE THERE WOULD BE NO REWARD FOR THE MILLIONS OF INVENTIONS TO GET > IT.
There's no need to shout. *smile*
Patent laws are a relatively new invention. They did not exist at the time of the printing press, yet somehow Guttenburg still created his world changing invention.
One might argue that computers would not be here without IP laws, but are IP laws the *really* reason computers are around today? Of course not. Early computers were simply not economical to build. It took money from the military and universities to get us where we are today. The internet would not exist today if the military and universities didn't surrender their IP claims. If they held on to them, inovation would be a lot *slower*.
I'm not saying IP laws are bad. I'm simply saying that they are not nearly as necessary as you think.
>No thanks. Capitalism is just fine by me. Free
>market enterprise and competetion will keep
>prices reasonable (which is the argument against
>monopolization of an industry), so you'll always
>be able to pick up, say, a C++ book and learn
>how to beat the "evil, money-making
>corporations".
I've always thought it rather funny that
free market fans argue that IP laws are an
essential component of a free market when
their explicit intent is to limit competition
on goods based on original ideas through
government intervention. In their effect
copyrights and patents are a form of government
enforced monopoly that can artificially keep the
price of any product based on IP far above the
marginal cost of production for the entire term
of the copyright or patent. That sort of
artificially inflated price looks like the
effect of lack of a competitive free market
to me. In a truly free market government
wouldn't intervene to keep prices so far above
the cost of production.
"If I have seen farther than others, it is because I was standing on the shoulders of giants."
-- Isaac Newton
Alas, this doesn't mean anything at all what people commonly believe it to mean.
Newton's arch-nemesis was a misshapen little dwarf who had pissed him off to no end.
The comment was Newton's way of denying his competitor any credit for having influenced him.
Basically, it translates to "Hey, I got where I am without any help from inconsequential freaks like you."
Companies make money by providing services to customers. They might use programs developed for their own internal use which they don't have to share with anyone which gives them a "competitive" advantage in providing that service. They might distribute "freeware" programs (or facilitate the development of such programs) for the purpose of providing enough infrastructure to their customers (and their potential customers) so that the customers can use their service.
Actually, as the net bandwidth goes up & latency goes down, I think that this will actually be the preferred operation mode of companies since they can then provide their services from centrally-operated servers with total control over how they charge their customers for those services (and keep pirates from copying the "meat&potatoes" part of their software, since that will only be on their central server).
It might also be handy for consumers, since the companies will be able to provide resources that the individual consumers couldn't afford (at the appropriate cost, of course).
The main problem with this approach is the privacy question - a company who is closely analysing your use of their server can probably construct a very detailed profile about you. Without very strong privacy logs, the odds are probably good that they'll sell that profile to other companies which will combine them with other profiles to form a comprehensive database about you. (I believe we already know examples about this kind of behavior, pointing out the lack of existing strong privacy laws.)
Companies can make money by providing services, perhaps by using "secret" software they've written themselves (and which they keep to themselves). If they can do that better than their competitors, then they'll make money.
" Companies make money by providing services to customers. They might use programs developed for their own internal use which they don't have to share with anyone which gives them a "competitive" advantage in providing that service. They might distribute "freeware" programs (or facilitate the development of such programs) for the purpose of providing enough infrastructure to their customers (and their potential customers) so that the customers can use their service.
Actually, as the net bandwidth goes up & latency goes down, I think that this will actually be the preferred operation mode of companies since they can then provide their services from centrally-operated servers with total control over how they charge their customers for those services (and keep pirates from copying the "meat&potatoes" part of their software, since that will only be on their central server).
It might also be handy for consumers, since the companies will be able to provide resources that the individual consumers couldn't afford (at the appropriate cost, of course).
The main problem with this approach is the privacy question - a company who is closely analysing your use of their server can probably construct a very detailed profile about you. Without very strong privacy logs, the odds are probably good that they'll sell that profile to other companies which will combine them with other profiles to form a comprehensive database about you. (I believe we already know examples about this kind of behavior, pointing out the lack of existing strong privacy laws.) "
Where do small code houses fit in your little scheme?
If I'm a startup I don't have the money that the big companies do to set up massive server farms. If I release my code, the big guy can snap it up and offer it on their bigger, and faster server farm. Explain how I would recoup my costs on this. Especially if the program I write is so easy to use and bug free that the support for it is virtually zero.
On the other hand, if somebody has an idea, locks it with a patent & prevents anybody else from using it for 17 years, then it might be considered beneficial to the society to BREAK their patent & let a big company like GM (or all of the big companies) bring all of its/their resources to bear to bring the benefits of that idea to the society.
The compromise in this is probably how long a patent is valid, and I think that a lot of people feel that 17 years is too long.
"I guess the bone I'm picking in your post is #2, since those same private companies are indirectly supported and made viable by the government."
- Where does the government get it's money?
- Who plays a large portion of the funds for parties to run for office (in various positions).
Answer to both: big business. Many (most?) of these companies rely heavily on proprietary products for their income.
I submit that much of the reason so much money is thrown at high-tech R&D is because high-tech companies pay a large part of the funds for parties to run for office. Hence it is the funds of proprietary companies that are driving basic research in the direction you've noted. More evidence of this can (I think) be found looking at the new curriculums being pushed in north america, which places high-tech required skills at the forefront of our childrens education (science, math, computer training, etc..).
I don't think this is entirely correct - if Microsoft can prove that by giving your "free" program to Fred, you stopped Fred from buying their program to do the same thing, then they can sue you for the loss of income.
If you posted on the Internet, they can sue you for the loss of the income that they THINK they might have gotten from all the people that downloaded your software from the Internet.
If you file under bankruptcy, even though they know they won't get anywhere near the damages that they claim, they might decide to make an example out of you so that other people don't try and do the same thing, and do something like require that most of any future money you earn go to them for the rest of your life.
If a big company decides to step on an invididual, then that individual had better have some really powerful resources at his or her command to fight back & survive.
" support your content with clickthroughs to amazon, etc. plus ad banners. "
Q: What does amazon sell?
A: products based on IP laws.
Have a look at the banners you see around the net,
and the commercials you see on TV, billboards, etc...most of those companies rely on IP rights to protect themselves. So are all of these companies supposed to simply see advertising space? To whom?
Is that all that IP is going to be for in the new IP lawless world? -- to sell advertising space to the people who make concrete versions of the ideas the IP people thought of? No thank you.
Let's reverse this:
1. Microsoft (or other large corporation) buys patent portfolios or pays engineers to sit around brainstorming thinking of stupid patentible ideas. Corporation has money to actually file 10,000 patents. Might not even need to file yet - just document & notarize that they thought of the basic idea. Might not intend to do anything with any of the ideas (they just want something to be able to get money from somebody else who wants to use idea).
2. Individual comes up with neat idea. Figures out how they can make some money of it. Might actually get a patent for idea. Scrapes together cash & starts a small business based on idea.
3. Bored lawyer at big company sees little company making money. Vaguely remembers filing patent papers for similar idea described by little company's web site. Lawyer decides to justify his/her existence, sends a letter to little company insisting that little company's patent violates any number of some of the claims of big company's patent portfolio, demanding licensing fees or "cease & desist".
4. Little company can't afford licensing fees, can't afford to hire the legal help necessary to fight big company & entire service is based on "idea". Little company goes under. Big company doesn't give a damn.
Frankly, I think the current patent system gives a lot more protection to large companies which have big patent portfolios than any individuals that might have a good idea.
" What about those who come up with an idea independent of someone else, and miss out because we were too late to the patent office? That hardly encourages inventing; it encourages corporate sabotage, spying, legal disputes, etc...."
This is still better than what you're proposing -- that both parties do the work, but neither gets paid because a third guy sells their IP for free and invests all of it's $$ on hiring the best support people instead of creators.
In addition, I suggest that this timeline increases the speed at which companies work to get an idea out the door, not slow it. Consider this analogy; instead of talking about two companies trying to get a patent for the same idea, lets say we're talking about two companies who are trying to enter some market with similar products. Because of the nature of the market, the first one in will become the standard, the second guy will die out. We see this kind of stuff all the time, yet companies still vy for these markets. Why? because if they're better than the other guy they make a killing, the reward is large enough to justify the risk.
This competition is good. It keeps companies constantly trying to find the next big thing, without IP protection we would have hoards of companies who did nothing but undersell other people's ideas and provide better support. However, in nature such creatures are called vultures, and without the creators they will die.
Ideas aren't covered by any law (well in uk anyway) Recently there has been a lot of fuss about advertising agencies ripping off Artists.
The most famous being the guiness ad with that guy jumping about. The guy who's idea it was (and who was originally supposed to do the ad) sued
and lost. You feel sorry for the guy because the way the idea was expressed was very close to the original. The decision is always going to lie with the judges.
I see this SAMN argument over and over again, and it is simply wrong. There are apparently a large majority of people completely devoid of any critical thinking skills. How is a piece of food or a book comparable to software? If I have a book and I give you that book, I no longer have it. THAT is why books are property. I can have some software, make you a copy and I still have my own copy.
It's not wrong. You are looking at the issue as a consumer and not as a producer. Look at it as the work involved in creating the product. Just because one product is easier to duplicate and disseminate does not mean that the work is any less or should be compenstated less. It takes Farmer Joe five months to produce a crop, it takes Programmer Bob five months to produce a piece of software. Does Farmer Joe deserve to get paid because his product has a physical manifestation that is difficult and time consuming to dupilcate, while Programmer Bob does not because you can trivially make duplicates of his work? Does his work have any less value because it lacks a physical manifestation? You seem to think so.
You views are relics and they will pass away in time.
Your views are fantasy and will never come to pass.
It's only your "rightful compensation" because currently the law gives you rights to restrict distribution...
That applies to all products, IP and material goods. Regardless of the fact that your statement was well written, it lacks a proper foundation. Explain why you think that the work to produce material goods (which in some cases exploit natural processes to produce the product) has a greater value than the work necessary to produce an idea or thought?
It's easy to be a proponent of IP before
you find your life depends on a drug you
cannot afford.
And I understand the pharmaceutical companies need to regain their costs of developing, but to price most of the new drugs at a level more than the price of gold, is patently ridiculous. It's not the concept of IP that bothers me, it's the ad-absurdum extremes companies will go to, once they realize they have an advantage.
And trying to manipulate the food supply,
using terms like "seed pirate" evidences there is no limit, no ceiling to how far these companies will go to make a buck. I wonder how loudly they will be proclaiming their IP when they develop a strain of corn that destroys several years of produce, or more? These same people who are screaming "seed pirate" will be saying "anybody could have done it! Nothing abuot our seeds is any different than what a, or b is doing!" And they would go on down the line "proving" that their seeds are _not_ unique.
Speaking of a shaky understanding of American history...the Civil War was not fought to defend the institution of slavery. Is was centered around states rights...in particular, whether or not states had the right to secede from the Union.
Quote for the day:
Don't tell someone to pull their head out of their ass when you have shit all over your face.
What is an advanced trick for one person, may be a natural extension for someone else.
If only two people in the world were able to solve a particular problem, one of them should not be able to prevent the other from doing so, just because he encountered the problem first. He should own the copyright to his particular implementation of the solution, but not to the idea that would be "obvious" to both.
What you said is true...
However, it is also wrong. Heck of a paradox? Not really.
The point of this essay as well as others like it, is to give credence and justification to the theft of abstractions in a concrete form.
Think about it, you cannot physically take an idea. An idea does not exist until I put it into a concrete form, book, code, painting, music, etc.
So, that being true, the entire argument is moot. Since there is no way a person could have access to my thoughts. Therefore the absolute point of such discussion is to provide spurious credibility to theft of abstraction that has been made concrete.
I've read these types of articles before and they all want to show that stealing any form of creation that is not in and of itself an item, per se, like a book, painting, or music, or code, is valid because ideas cannot be owned
They want justification for stealing these ideas. Granted you can steal a book I've written copy it and redistribute it and yes I still own the book.
However, you have stolen economic opportunity from the originator of the work. That theft is just as real as stealing a car from someone else.
I think the best definition of property is: anything owned with innate economic value.
The question then raised is 'what is ownership?' that to me is a far more valid question.
As for capitalism and socialism. Socialism leads to societies harming individuals who then has no recourse. Capitalism leads to individuals harming individuals however, anyone can still take action against the perpetrator, if they so desire.
Pretty simple you can't fight the government but you can fight your boss.
To qoute RMS:
:-)
"Gosling originally had
set up his Emacs and distributed it free and gotten many people to help develop it, under the expectation based on Gosling's own
words in his own manual that he was going to follow the same spirit that I started with the original Emacs. Then he stabbed everyone
in the back by putting copyrights on it, making people promise not to redistribute it and then selling it to a software-house. My later
dealings with him personally showed that he was every bit as cowardly and despicable as you would expect from that history. "
BTW 'privat' comes from the latin 'privare' (to rob) or 'privatio' (to remove something from a whole/deprive someone of something). A little ethymology.
We're not talking about limiting anyone's right to limit someone else's use of a thing. We're talking about limiting anyone's right to claim that ONLY THEY can use an IDEA. I'll use your analogy to see if I can't make the distinction.
1) You have the IDEA to increase the efficiency of some process.
2) You make some OBJECT (software, machine, etc...) which increases the efficiency of some process.
Nobody here wants to take your right to limit who sells your OBJECT, we're talking about limiting your ability to claim that ONLY YOU can use the IDEA.
To be a bit more concrete, we're not talking about limiting your ability to protect your software, we're talking about not giving you the ability to own the idea of writing software to increase the efficiency of that business process.
The Masked Miscreant >:)
Who's going to pay all these givers away of the fruits of their hard intellectual work? Writers fought hard for copyright starting some time in the sixteenth century. Until it finally began to take shape in the early seventeenth century, a writer's life was something like that of lapdog to the rich--unless he had no backer, in which case he worked as a copyist, hand copying written documents, or he didn't work as a writer at all. Generations of writers (my profession) secured the concept of copyright for us all. Don't give that concept away just to topple MS.
Free source, as a way to create the backbone operating system we all use, is a great idea. But the thought of all code being free is lunacy. You all are extremely talented and deserve to be highly paid. But if you give away all your rights to copyright in your code, you'll end up working phone support for the rest of your life.
arcadia
aradia@one.net
....before they see a dip in their profits.
They are considering inserting genes that render the grown plant sterile ostensibly so farmers can't use the seed the plant makes for the next
season. But supposing, just supposing for some reason they do this and supply lines are disrupted for whatever catastrophic reason and people can't get new seed. How much of the world would starve, unable to grow new food? Esp. since corporate agribusiness has almost single-handedly killed off any crop diversity?
Would it take seeing millions, perhaps even their own family starving to death for lack of food before they realize just how insane this is?
How long would our existing grain reserves last?
How long would our society remain sane enough NOT to fall apart at the seams?
Not if it becomes a rescessive gene.
The reason why intellectual property is protected is the same reason that any property is protected. Whether by physical or mental labor you create value, the creator is much less likely to create value if the product of their creation is taken from them. If it is intellectual property then I may deign to sell licenses and get royalties if my invention is popular. I may also give it away and receive tremendous popularity and adulation from the masses. That is my choice.
If I invent an immensely successful anti-cancer drug, I am much less likely to go about getting the tremendous capitalization required to test it and bring it to market. Without patent protection their is no reason to add value to the system other than in simply producing the thing and selling it.
Basically patent protection claims that there are some people who have the rare ability to invent new things. They must be rewarded in some way or they will not share those ideas, because they must live in a scarce society also. They must also eat, go to their 9 to 5 job etc. Certainly patents are not the only way, but they are a significant way.
Sometimes patents are the best way, sometimes the GPL is the best way. Use a little Zen and grok why this is so. If I have a piece of slick, efficient code and I give it away and it gets used then I buy myself into a sort of immortality and many, many people benefit. The value of that is priceless.
Take your pick.
" The whole point of Linux is open source. Meaning that peoples ideas are shared freely, which is pretty much the opposite of IP, afaik. And, all OS-wars aside, Linux is obviously not dead. The system works, and the reason people add to the collective pool of knowledge (embodied in source code) is simply because they want to see the system do a certain thing. I'm pretty sure thats why most (probably close to all) GPL'd packages are created to begin with.
And the Linux phenomenon is so much fun because it WORKS. Even Linux's competitors admit this. "
And where do most of the developers get their money?
1. Work for a company that sells proprietary products.
1a. Work as a "waiter";-)
2. Work for universities that are paid in the end by companies producing proprietary products.
3. Students who either support themselves by 1. or 2. or are supported by their parents who make money via 1. or 2.
4. Work for a company who pays them to write free software; that company is made profitable due to the free work of others, which is in turn made possible via 1. 2. or 3.
Note: it would be possible to only use option 1a. but it seems to me that this option values intellectual results worthless and is not the soceity in which I would want to live.
There are NO examples of the end result of a completely free software system. Innovation on the free software side and the proprietary side is inexcorably linked and to try and say one can exist without the other while only talking about "freedom" is naive.
To counter this, find a system in which no one makes money in any way from the restriction of IP rights, and is self sustaining (while at least to the extent our current system is:-).
The assumption being made by IP laws is that ideas have a unique origin,
...'"
but this is often not the case. The airplane was independently discovered
by several people within a few years of the Wright brother's discovery.
Basically, the time was right for the idea and it just evolved.
This has happened countless times throughout history. Why? Because despite
all the folklore we spread about great scientists/engineers inventing
great earth-shattering things out of nothing, this rarely happens
in practise.
Most discoveries are incremental:
"If I have seen farther than others, it is because I was standing on the
shoulders of giants."
-- Isaac Newton
Many of the truly earth-shattering discoveries are accidental:
"The most exciting phrase to hear in science, the one that heralds new
discoveries, is not 'Eureka!' (I found it!) but 'That's funny
-- Isaac Asimov
If an idea is incremental (as most ideas are) or accidental, should it be
patentable? Many ideas do not seem obviously incremental because they come
from many sources. Having more than one source makes it more legitimate
because as everyone knows:
"Quoting one is plagiarism. Quoting many is research."
-- Unknown
But if it's incremental or accidental, it's likely that someone will
*independently* come up with a similar idea. If someone does, should
IP laws apply? Should this person's livelihood and the livelihood of all
other independent discoverers be infringed upon by the first person's claim?
If the wrong IP laws are in place, innovation is hindered:
"If I have not seen as far as others, it is because giants were standing
on my shoulders."
-- Hal Abelson
and "trivial" ideas get locked in complicated licencing agreements
"In computer science, we stand on each other's feet."
-- Brian K. Reid
This issue, is independent of whether IP is property or not, but since
very little in software cannot be independently discovered, it's definitely
not irrelevant.
The assumption being made by IP laws is that ideas have a unique origin,
...'"
but this is often not the case. The airplane was independently discovered
by several people within a few years of the Wright brother's discovery.
Basically, the time was right for the idea and it just evolved.
This has happened countless times throughout history. Why? Because despite
all the folklore we spread about great scientists/engineers inventing
great earth-shattering things out of nothing, this rarely happens
in practise.
Most discoveries are incremental:
"If I have seen farther than others, it is because I was standing on the
shoulders of giants."
-- Isaac Newton
Many of the truly earth-shattering discoveries are accidental:
"The most exciting phrase to hear in science, the one that heralds new
discoveries, is not 'Eureka!' (I found it!) but 'That's funny
-- Isaac Asimov
If an idea is incremental (as most ideas are) or accidental, should it be
patentable? Many ideas do not seem obviously incremental because they come
from many sources. Having more than one source makes it more legitimate
because as everyone knows:
"Quoting one is plagiarism. Quoting many is research."
-- Unknown
But if it's incremental or accidental, it's likely that someone will
*independently* come up with a similar idea. If someone does, should
IP laws apply? Should this person's livelihood and the livelihood of
all other independent discoverers be infringed upon by the first
person's claim?
If the wrong IP laws are in place, innovation is hindered:
"If I have not seen as far as others, it is because giants were standing
on my shoulders."
-- Hal Abelson
and "trivial" ideas get locked in complicated licencing agreements
"In computer science, we stand on each other's feet."
-- Brian K. Reid
This issue, is independent of whether IP is property or not, but since
very little in software cannot be independently discovered, it's definitely
not irrelevant.
If you want to encourage the copyright law to be changed to allow free copying, there are two barriers to this:
1) there must be a technology infrastructure to enable creators of works to receive due compensation upon deriving use out of their works: i.e. copying a song or a book. This is a requirement imposed by our modern economy - without it, there is no economic incentive for authors/artists to continue what they are doing.
2) there must be a change in the widespread believe that protecting "information" is as important as protecting "knowledge. Information is noisy and has a short shelf-life. Knowledge, on the other hand, is ever-changing and growing, and IS ONLY IN THE HEADS of PEOPLE.
It is knowledge, and the ability to learn that is the real competitive advantage. If people en masse start to belive that, then we'll see change.
If these are the seeds I've heard about recently, they won't germinate anyway -- they're engineered not to.
Perhaps FSF should start a Free Seeds movement. After all, aren't the gene wizards twiddling with the most important software of all?
slashdot broke my sig
Don't know about being next to a very positive gene, but that situation is already very common (look at all the infertile people, IVF is a booming business last I heard). Infertility can only propagate as a recessive gene. If it happens to get re-enforced, that individual will be infertile. Oh, they had some really good traits? that's what having more than one zygote is for (along with population growth in general).
To sum up, I don't think you have to worry too much in the long run.
Bill - aka taniwha
--
Leave others their otherness. -- Aratak
That's the only real way an infertility gene can wipe out a whole population. Chances? Slim, but there.
Bill - aka taniwha
--
Leave others their otherness. -- Aratak
Did it AFFECT the economic interests of Average-Poor-Southern-White-Guy? Heck, yes.
Whether it neccesarily offered a benefit's a somewhat more questionable thing. Far more of the poor non-slaveowners who defended the institution did so (at least in the view of Northern observers) to prevent themselves from being the lowest class of society -- "if you can't be better than a [black person], who can you be better than?"
Posted by wadageek:
Nobody will be able to convince me that Stephen King should not profit from the stories he writes; After all, it is his life's work and the product of his 'tormented' mind. The same thing is true for Led Zepplin's 'Stairway' and the obviously deserve some control over it's use otherwise, the work could be tarnished.
An idea is born from one's mind or perhaps even from one's soul. In a very real essence, the original idea is the ultimate expression of one's self. Can you think of anything that would better represent who you really are than your own ideas? I can't.
But there is another component. We are all products of other people's ideas. Someone had to have the idea to begin to speak, someone else had to start written languages. English evolved from other aincent languages and the same can be said for programming languages. To see how ideas are borrowed and improved on just look at the evolution of the automobile in the past 100 years.
The ability to borrow from someone's idea and build on it is crucial to our ability as a society to advance. But in all fairness, "credit where credit is due" is also a pretty important concept. This is why I like the concept of open source, you can see that both ideals are honored in it.
Linus has been given the credit he is due but legions of people have grabbed on to the product of his labors and have used it in ways that he would have never envisioned! Each person gives a little and gets a lot. That is the way that it ought to work.
Having said all that, I think that there are times when ownership of an idea (by way of patent or copyright) is necessary. It is not immoral to profit from one's ideas, it is the way the world works. If you are a company that has spent tens of thousands of dollars developing something, you do not want you competition to get it just by downloading it from your server or website. If they happen to get a copy of it somehow, yud deserve to be able to go after them.
This is one of those cases where both sides are righ and nobody is wrong. It just so happens that it is hard to get both positions to work in the same instance. Kinda like the republicans and the democrats. Maybe the software industry needs someone like Jesse Ventura to come along and shake things into shape.
Posted by dwarin:
The comparison between concrete and abstract
things was disingenuous and one-sided.
In summary, the article says that if I grow an
ear of corn, and someone else takes it, they
interfere with *my* ability to eat it. On the
other hand, if I design a steam engine, and
someone else uses my design to build a steam
engine, that doesn't in any way interfere with
my ability to also build steam engines. In
other words many people can use an abstract
thing at once. Therefore, the article
concludes, unlike concrete things like ears
of corn, it doesn't make sense for abstract
things, like steam-engine designs, to be
property.
The problem with this is that it ignores the
fact that in some ways, abstract and concrete
things are the same. Something like a
steam-engine design doesn't just pop into one's
head. It takes years of research and
development to create. Once I've created it,
someone with much more resources than me could
take my design, produce lots of steam engines,
and sell them, depriving me of the ability to
benefit from my labor. In this sense, it's no
different then if they'd taken away my ears of
corn.
This is in fact what would happen without
copyrights: large companies like Microsoft or
Ford would simply hunt around for useful
inventions, and use their resources to
mass-produce and market the products without
giving any credit or reward to the people who
invented them.
Unless Van Horn can include this similarity
between concrete and abstract things in his
comparison, his comparison seems disingenuous
and academic.
Posted by dwarin:
I agree with you that
That is as much their right [to create a
similar idea] as selling info is yours.
The problem comes when someone can copyright an
idea, thereby preventing others from selling their
own similar ideas.
Lets say, just for the sake of argument, that paintings, music, and software are all art. (Many think that yes, even software, is art.) Art is a form of an idea, right?
One of the funny things about art is that there are people who will do it, and do it well, without ever having the promise of receiving any amount of money for it. They love doing it, so they do it. And the reason they are able to do it is because all of their other needs are taken care of--in other words, they don't have to worry about finding food or shelter or any of the other various necessities of life because those things have become very easy to attain.
Now we're trying to make art into an ``industry''. We, as a society, are trying to replace all this free time for artful expression with economically profitable work time by actually making art into something that a person needs to be paid for in order to survive. All of a sudden, the compensation for creating a painting or writing music or coding software or doing any other number of `arty' things has changed from the nearly unexplainable, ``if you have to ask, you'll never know'' why, to being compensated with money. This is nothing new, I suppose. But copyright and patent laws are also stopping people from utilizing their freedom of expression which is something rather new. There are enough people in the world that sometimes ideas are reproduced many times. Is it right that only the first person to get to the patent office gets to use their idea? To answer my own question, no, I do not think that is right.
This is all a load of bull. Economics aren't everything. I'm happy to have a roof over my head, food in my kitchen, and a computer to hack on. I don't need a whole lot else. Chasing ugly little slips of paper doesn't make me as happy as crashing my kernel does.
Of course, not everyone thinks this way. I wouldn't dream of stopping anyone in their pursuit of ugly slips of paper if that is what makes them happy. But I'll be damned if I let them stop me from doing what I love to do. Those people who like copyright and patent laws on ideas only seem to want to do that to me.
A few people have pointed out the origins of copyright law in the early 1700s, under the influence of John Locke, who said that "Every Man is a Property in his own Person", and defined "Property" as everything acquired or produced through personal efforts. It's the basis of modern liberal capitalism, saying that the State or society shouldn't be able to rob you of what's yours.
However, "Property" at the time was closely bound up with "Propriety", as the words suggest. The protection of personal Property comes with a set of moral obligations for the individual and society. In short, we should think it proper to offer our labour (read: ideas) for the public good, but society should recognise and reward that offer. If this sounds like RMS's "gift economy", then it's because it is: but it's plain to see that he, like Linus, Larry Wall and many other developers, receive a far richer reward for their labour than the mere riches of Bill Gates.
This world of "propriety" -- giving and receiving because it's a good thing all round -- is very different from the MS culture of the "proprietary", which gives to the world with a closed fist and makes demands out of its giving.
What we need, in a sense, is an IP law which rewards propriety, and restricts the proprietary. Those who contribute ideas, in order to have them flourish, deserve protection, rather than those who regard ideas as things to be hoarded until the time comes to sue.
Craig
While that's certainly a noble reason, it doesn't apply today.
I dunno. The estates of AA Milne, CS Lewis, RA Heinlein and others might not agree with you so readily.
In any case, the classic view of copyright is that it does not protect an idea per se -- e.g. the peaceful tranquillity of a wooded valley in the summer etc. -- but rather its particular expression in specific poetry, prose, music, painting, or whatnot.
What about artistic integrity? Are the activist film directors completely out of line when they sue distributors for cutting their movie in a way which -- in their opinion -- destroys its artistic integrity? What rights does an artist have over his creation? What rights does a programmer have over his code?
Personally I have no exhaustive answer to those questions, but I definitely can't accept the view that the creator of a poem or a sonata or a program has no more fundamental property rights with regard to it than does the first passerby who notices it.
Craig
communist anarchism (Marxism);
syndical anarchism;
individualist anarchism;
Christian anarchism (Tolstoy; more accurately called pacifist anarchism).
All shared the labor theory of value, whose sole remaining proponents nowadays are the socialists. This may be the source of your confusion; Tucker was usually classified as an individualist anarchist. The communist anarchists -- the ones involved in the Haymarket Riots -- sneered at the individualist anarchists and called them "Boston anarchists" -- since Tucker's magazine Liberty was published in Boston.
Contemporary political classifications don't always fit historical situations too well. (In fact, some political classifications don't fit the contemporary situation too well.)
Craig
Hmmm. I was under the impression that the anarchist faction in Spain was mostly of the syndical anarchist faction (as was, I believe, Bakunin), but I'll take your word for it, though early Marxists tended to classify themselves as anarchists on the basis of the "withering away of the state."
Craig
Craig
OTOH, having Monsanto creating seeds that spread infertility among plant crops is a criminal action tantamount to biological warfare
I can assure you that the terminator gene won't be "spread among other crops". Billions of years of evolution won't be thwarted so easily. Inability to reproduce, genetically speaking, is a disadvantage, and the trait won't [duh] be passed on to the next generation.
That doesn't make Monsanto any less evil, however. If they could find a way to profit from global crop destruction, they would.
Disclaimer: The paragraph directly above this one, about Monsanto being evil, is my opinion. Please don't sue me, oh great god Monsanto!
"Remember, there never were pineapple-almond cookies here."
You made alot of good points in your post, but:
Monsanto plans to soon release Roundup Ready seeds with terminator genes which will prevent second generation seeds from germinating. Many environmentalists and geneticists have stated concerns that such terminator genes could be passed into the general crop population via pollen and potentially kill off our original crops leaving only corporate produced seeds available to farmers. Such a move is insanity if we consider survival a worthy goal for humanity.
The fact that the terminator genes prevent the crop from reproducing will absolutely prevent it from "spreading" into other crops. See my other post above.
As far as labeling goes, I totally agree with you. Monsanto doesn't want the consumer to be informed. They have the same attitude regarding labeling of milk that is from rBGH treated cows. Monsanto is simply evil.
Disclaimer: This post contains my opinions regarding the evilness of Monsanto. If you are a lawyer who works for Monsanto, please disregard all of the content above this disclaimer.
"Remember, there never were pineapple-almond cookies here."
I think most people will agree that a company which invests resources to create a product (software, genetic, etc.) have the right to be the primary benificiary of that work. Patent and copyright law exists to guarantee this. It seems to me, though, that a third component-- trade secrets-- is often left off the list, despite the fact that it seems to be the logical way to handle these sorts of things.
Companies like Monsanto, Fraunhofer (MP3), etc. should not be allowed to patent those ideas and inventions which are logically viewed as trade secrets. Creating a new strain of corn, for example, doesn't involve the creation of a new gene or genes, nor does it involve any great discovery in the process of inserting genes from one organism into another. Rather, it involves the novel combination of known substances via known processes into a novel and useful product.
Think about Coke for a moment. Water, High fructose corn syrup, caffeine, etc. are all known substances anyone can obtain. Everyone whose taken high school chemistry knows how to combine these elements into a solution. Because no one knows exactly what proportion to combine these ingredients in, nor exactly how to mix them, however, no one can exactly duplicate Coke. Many try to create a similair product, and many make a healthy profit in doing so, but no one is "stealing" from Coke. It's the difference between Coke patenting "the production of any cola-flavored beverage" and them bottling their secret recipie for soda.
Monsanto et all can certainly operate under the same system. Monsanto can sell "SUPERCorn" and advertise its many benfits-- higher yield, shorter growing season, resists insects, etc. while retaining the precise method for producing such a beast as a trade secret. If Upstart Labs can use the idea "a crop that resists insects" to design their own "Upstart-Corn" strain to compete with Monsanto or make an "Upstart-Pine" strain that resists termites. Monsanto gains the primary benefit from their work, others are free to innovate, to compete or to carve out their own niche, and the world in general benefits.
Fraunhofer can deem the exact method by which they compress sound a trade secret and sell their work. If it's truely innovative, they'll have the benefit not only of a head start until someone can implement a competitor as well as a quality lead. You or I could use their idea to build our own GPL'd compression system, the phone company could reduce the data required to hold a telephone conversation, and some entrepenuer in 5 years could use it to build a new multi-million dollar corporation. The innovator gets the primary benefit, but others are free to innovate if they cannot.
This was written in 1926. That explains the language and phrasing.
I can't believe that NOONE bothered to read the entire post in enough detail to figure this out.
-- Too lazy to get a lower UID.
Sorry. I had a short fit of frustration. Obviously not everyone on /. is a moron and I apologize to those who I offended. Of course, no apologies if you ARE a moron.
-- Too lazy to get a lower UID.
1a. Work as a "waiter";-)
2. Work for universities that are paid in the end by companies producing proprietary products.
3. Students who either support themselves by 1. or 2. or are supported by their parents who make money via 1. or 2.
4. Work for a company who pays them to write free software; that company is made profitable due to the free work of others, which is in turn made possible via 1. 2. or 3.
In a recent issue of the IEEE's computer magazine (Computer?) -- I think the one about the US Digital Library Initiative -- there was a brief survey of the practical results of various government-funded research programs in computing. I think you might be surprised by just how much of the modern US computer industry is based on government-funded basic research.
One interesting point raised in the article (and this ties in with the whole discussion) is that the government's role has been crucial in funding long-term projects (20+ years), like AI and VR efforts which are only now starting to bear commercial fruit. Without the government's investment and support, it is conceivable -- maybe even likely -- that the US would not be in the leading position, as the basic research would never have been funded that enabled the private companies to make their products.
I guess the bone I'm picking in your post is #2, since those same private companies are indirectly supported and made viable by the government.
Well, that's all now. Back to my essay. Never leave a 4,000 word essay until the night before, especially when the prof demands that you think...
--
Change is inevitable.
Progress is not.
I doubt the farmer is allowed by the contract to resell the seed. If he is, then it will probably be under the same conditions that he agreed to.
It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds. - Captain Hammer
Whoops. That's obvious. I meant reselling it for planting purposes. That was the issue here. If the seed is sold for planting purposes, then the person who buys the grain will be under the same restrictions.
It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds. - Captain Hammer
Companies like Monsanto, Fraunhofer (MP3), etc. should not be allowed to patent those ideas and inventions which are logically viewed as trade secrets. Creating a new strain of corn, for example, doesn't involve the creation of a new gene or genes, nor does it involve any great discovery in the process of inserting genes from one organism into another. Rather, it involves the novel combination of known substances via known processes into a novel and useful product.
Trade secrets don't work very well anymore. We can pick apart just about anything to see how it works. Monsanto could create the corn and a month or two later someone else would be making it as well. Where is the benefit to Monsanto? That's why they are prohibiting farmers from saving some of their crop for replanting. They would not be able to recoup the money that was spent on developing the corn. The same goes for Fraunhofer. Their compression algorithm would be figured out and they would have face competitors who can sell their products for whatever price they want because they didn't have to invest anything in the development.
I don't necessarily agree that Monsanto should not have been awarded a patent. I do think that patents, as they exist today, do more harm than good. They simply last too long for the rate of innovation today to be truly useful to society as a whole. Our government enforces these supposedly for the benefit of the country as a whole. I don't think patents are benefitting us as much as they used to. Namely because they last way too long. By the time a patent runs out, the technology it covers is usually long outdated. They should be reduced to half their length, or perhaps just 5 years. Software patents only last for maybe 3 years. That's time enough for a software company to profit from its creation and still give other companies a chance to do something with the technology before it becomes obsolete.
It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds. - Captain Hammer
1) How many times have you had a good idea, independently, and later found out that someone else had already thought of it and patented it?
That's why we have patent searches and the IBM patent database (for those of us who can't afford to have someone do the search for us).
In most cases a 1 to 2 year patent would be enough to make alot of money, thereby encouraging ideas *and* encouraging value added ideas (the sole reason patent laws were created). The only time this falls apart is in the case of really long projects such as creation of new drugs, for which other measures can be taken.
I think it depends on the kind of product. I think 5 years is fair for most products. For software patents, I would say 2 or 3 years is optimal.
It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds. - Captain Hammer
I heard about this on NPR the other day. I didn't like it either. It's perfectly legal right now though.. maybe that's what I didn't like. Genes should not be considered IP. They were not invented. Procedures for manipulating genes are another matter. However, Monsanto didn't patent the procedure, they patented the result of the procedure. I don't agree with that. I do believe that companies who invent such things as new strains of corn, or whatever other crop, should receive some kind of return on their investment. If they had to sink millions into the research, they should be compensated and be able to profit from the research. If they can't receive some benefit from doing research to create new products, then what incentive would they have had to create the product in the first place? Would I want to put myself in debt for life just to invent a new type of corn to give to the world? I doubt it. Of course, research costs could be dramatically lowered if they were free to use other people's research instead of reinventing the wheel all the time. But that opens the door to all kinds of unscrupulous people who will take advantage of such a system. Perhaps when something such as this comes along it should be bought outright by the government and given to the country. That probably has capitalists everywhere shouting and spitting at their monitors, but so far, I can't come up with a fair way of doing things that won't be exploited.
What was it that Gordon Gecko said in Wall Street? "Greed is good. Greed works." I believe that was it. Greed seems to be the entire incentive for doing anything worthwhile in this (or most any other) country. (Not necessarily the greed of the scientists that are doing the work, but the greed of the stockholders who are expecting to make money by funding the research.) Maybe that's the real problem. Since there is no way to live a comfortable life without money, we have to make as much as we can to allow ourselves to live at the standard we desire as well as to have something to ensure our future comfort and pass on to our children. I don't see this changing anytime soon.. or indeed anytime at all. Money is a necessity for life in this country. (Unless you want to live in a cabin on a mountain.) People need it to survive, so it's human nature to want to have as much of it as possible so that you can not only survive, but prosper. Much like squirrels hoarding nuts for the winter.
Since our entire economy depends on the ownership of ideas, I don't know how (especially with the world economy in its present condition) we could move away from the current system. Anyone else have any thoughts on this?
It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds. - Captain Hammer
Actually, the terminator gene CAN cross with neighboring crops, and render their seed infertile. Monsantos trick is to insert a dominant gene into the seed that codes for a toxic substance. They also insert a short sequence that prevents that trait from becoming active. Because of the way the control is onserted, it will be 'edited out' of the following generation, leaving only the DOMINANT deadly gene which causes the seed to be killed before it can effectivly germinate.
Since the trait is dominant, it will be expressed in a hybrid between the terminator and natural variety.
Consider a recessive trait for infertility in both of a breeding pair. 1/4 of the offspring will be infertile. The rest might well carry the recessive trait with no harm to themselves. They may also breed with a non-carrier, and spread the recessive.
It is interesting though, that even adding up all the taxes, bills, and mortgage, The house I live in now costs less than rent for a 2 bedroom apartment. What the landlord had that the tennant doesn't was enough money for a down payment. (And with the rent being so high, the tennant will have a hard time saving up for a down payment).
For a good historical account of how different nations of the world have evolved into the economic beings they are today, and a very good account of how "property-driven" society has proven to be very successful, read _Guns, Germs, and Steel_ by Jared Diamond.
In my own opinion, property over intellectual works, i.e. the words, source code, etc. is logical. The ideas behind them are another matter, and it is difficult to justify "ownership" over ideas.
-Stu
Actually, that's the biggest reason why copyright/IP protection exists: to ensure compensation.
If an infrastructure was created to enable free copying BUT also compensation for the creators, I think things could work.
-Stu
Our modern economy is largely based upon the "illogical" property scheme that forces the public to pay for copyrighted works. This economy has allowed the developed world to reach to the highest standards of living in history. Yes, it has a long way to go, as much of the world (and the developed world) is still in poverty. But please, don't detract from its success unless you can offer an alternative.
If people are allowed to freely copy paintings, music, software, etc. this has the potential to erode the economic incentive of artists to produce the works in the first place. This means fewer works, and this means a less successful economy, which is bad for society.
If you can work out an alternative system to free enterprise capitalism that works AS WELL, please state it. Otherwise, understand that "freeing" one's property, under THIS economic system MUST BE A CHOICE, not a law.
(unless there is in an infrastructure IN PLACE to ensure the compensation of creators WHILE allowing freedom to copy)
-Stu
Copyright is an economic incentive FOR those authors and artists to create the works that we enjoy. As RMS points out in his essay on copyright, it is a "bargain" with society: trade in the right to copy for increased access to these works.
Of course, NOW that its much easier to copy material, RMS says the law is a "bad deal". Well, I'm a little skeptical about that. My view is that the problem with copyright is the changed INTENT of the law; instead of preventing competition, which was the original intent, copyright now is used to ensure due compensation to the artists/authors/publishers.
Free copying cannot work under our economic system unless we have a compensation system in place that enables both free copying and compensation for every one of those copies.
-Stu
After reading RMS' essays on copyright, it seems that he would prefer if copyright law were to make the GPL irrelevant - i.e. the spirit of the GPL: enabling free redistribution - is embodied in copyright law.
In other words, the creators can not restrict copying under law.
Is this a good thing? It's questionable.
-Stu
Well said. I agree with you.
Note that the GPL is at best RMS' temporary measure to promote freedom. The end result, for him, is a change in the copyright LAWS that embody the spirit of the GPL.
Myself, I like the GPL and free software, but am not quite sure I agree with the end situation, unless of course we can find a way to pay these creators $$$ while we do our copying.
Copyright always has been about trading personal freedom for increased access to creative works (ensuring copy protection is an artist's or publisher's primary economic incentive to do what they do).... RMS belives that freedom takes precedence overall... but if economic incentive is removed from the creators of copyrighted works, then I fear there will be dire concequences in our economy and standard of living, unless an alternative incentive is created.
-Stu
There always HAS been different levels of lifestyle. What is important is that those living in poverty in the developed world are STILL better off than those living in poverty during the dark ages.
Same thing applies to the number of people that HAVE to live in poverty. Right now, there are a lot less than there were several centuries ago.
Our work to improve quality of life for all is not done, but there has been an observable improvement in lifestyle as our economic systems have evolved.
-Stu
Yes, the GPL is possible now because of copyright law.
However, if copyright laws were amended to ensure freedom of
copying and freedom of source (as RMS wishes to be done -
see his essays), then the GPL *WOULD NOT BE NEEDED*.
Now do you see my point?
-Stu
Uhhh... sorry. It's 95 years now. The Copyright Extension Act passed last year.
Actually, unless the legal challenge fails, in effect this makes copyrights open-ended. Any time a powerful corporation sees their copyrights about to expire (in this case most likely Disney, since Mickey Mouse was about to go public domain), they can just shower Congress with money and -- Presto -- a copyright extension! Wow, just like the sorcerer's apprentice.
No one forces you to share your ideas.
Force only comes into the equation if you try to enforce your copyright or patent.
Suppose you have an idea about a new algorithm, so you patent it (actually, you patent the application of the algorithm since technically it's illegal to patent algorithms per se). Then, I come along and think up the same algorithm, and I write a program using it. In this situation, no one has forced you to do anything. In fact, you're not even involved with my program or "my" idea until your lawyer sends me a letter telling me to "cease and desist". Now, who do you think is using the force here? It's not me -- it's the government, and they are using it on your behalf.
The only way an idea can be your property is if everyone else is forced to acknowledge your "rights".
Yup, contracts are fine.
But if I am a miller and I buy some of that seed to mill into flour, and decide "aww, hell, I'll have a go at this farming lark too", and so I plant that seed - well, what does that make me?
Or do the people who buy from the farmer also sign contracts saying what they can't do with their seed?
It all sounds like a house of cards to me.
-----
Errr yeah. I thought that was the whole point of slashdot :-)
-----
Altruism is wonderful. People helping others from the sheer joy of it, without any desire for recompense or even recognition, is a glorious and precious thing.
But how does it put food on the table? If I have some wonderful idea, shouldn't I be entitled to make some money from it? Without some form of ownership of ideas, someone else can simply take my idea and use it and not give me a thin cent. I'm stuck saying "do you want fries with that?" Uncool. I wouldn't have the job I have now, because my company wouldn't exist. The software company I work at competes in a market with some very big names. We do pretty darn well because we came up with some clever ideas, and the big guys have not yet been so clever as us. If my company didn't *own* those clever ideas, the big guys could simply adopt them for their own. In the enterprise markets, customers prefer to work with the big guys, so we'd be toast. All we have is a better product. If the big guy can take what makes our product better without having to pay us, we're sunk.
And what about motivation? Capitalism works, in part, because it is dependable and predictable. If you pay people, they will tend to do what they are paid to do. Some folks will continue to do it if they aren't paid. This is great, more power to them. They drive good software development, and nearly the whole open source movement. I say nearly because a growing trend is for other companies with an interest in the market are paying programmers to contribute. (Y'know, like stuff from Red Hat Labs.) Its the same folks, they could have written the code anyway, but they didn't until they were paid to do so. Where did the money come from? Companies who got paid for their ideas. Red Hat, using GNOME as the example, has done some clever things with their distribution, and gotten some useful name recognition. However, they only make money from that name recognition because they are the only ones who get to sell that product package with that name. If just anybody could clone the disks and manuals and sell it, people will do so and the market will shift until nobody is making any more money than they could putting the cash in a savings account. Bye-bye finance for open source. The Red Hat distro becomes a commodity product, just like nails and pencils. IP is even easier to copy, as pointed out in the essay, there aren't even any real startup costs as barriers to market entry. Just need some printing equipment and a CD burner and you're off. IBM owns more software patents than anybody else, and they have used some of their money to pay for Java development. Good. But they aren't doing it because its the right thing to do, they hope that in the end they will make more money from the effort than they spent. Which is their clear, legal duty to their stockholders. So free software is funded by ownership of ideas.
Yes, ownership of ideas can hurt the community and small teams. But it is also a protection. Without any form of ownership of IP, all licensing, EVEN THE GPL, is gone. Sure, you can have anything of Microsoft's that you want, but MS can take anything they want, too. And they have more money, and more marketing. So all of RMS's programming efforts go straight into a bank account in Redmond. I doubt they'll thank him. Getting rid of ownership of ideas will change the market, maybe hurt some of the big guys, but once everything settles, it'll be a group of companies that produce everything, and *all* of the small guys will be gone. They had no protection under the law, and the only money they'd ever get for their ideas is a salary from the company who took his ideas if they decide to bring him on.
If we were starting from zero and built a society that had never had ownership of ideas, maybe it could work. But not now, not here.
Arguments can be made about the *form* of IP ownership. Patent vs. copyright, owning software vs. licensing it, all of these can be debated and legislated. But the entire concept of the ownership of ideas cannot be scrapped.
-reemul
You're just jealous 'cuz the voices talk to *me*
I fully Agree that you own your IMPLEMENTATION of an idea, however the underlying idea should be free for others to use. Patent law (as applied in the US today) forbids this, even if someone else COMPLETELY INDEPENDENTLY discovers the same idea and produces thier own implementation. The fear is others might produce a better implementation, and actually COMPETE with you. One who truly believes in a free market, capitalist economic model (as you claim to) SHOULD (logically) approve of this competition, however that is not how our legal system (which is often absurdely illogical) treats the issue.
--
Until someone can read my mind without my intervention, my thoughts are mine, I'm afraid, as it would harm me (in terms of the time and effort it would take) to communicate them.
But the issue here really is about patent protection: should it be possible to make an idea public knowledge and simultaneously forbid others from using it without license?
Contractarians would say no: you can't restrict me without my consent, though, in practice. Your recourse is to not make the idea known to me. In practice of course, we accept all sorts of restrictions upon ourselves in exchange for others accepting similar restrictions upon THEMselves. We generally don't kill others because we don't want to be killed ourselves, to put it bluntly: killing is "wrong" because we think that "being killed" is wrong.
There are two counter arguments: First, that without protection against copying an idea, there is no incentive to innovate since the opportunity to profit is lost. Second, some ideas can't be exploited while keeping them secret (i.e. once shown, the idea is obvious).
But the key here is "copying". Patent protection not only provides recourse against unauthorized copying, it also prohibits indepedenendent reinvention. And, once the idea has been applied, reverse engineering may be trivial. This argument applies strongly in the pharmeceutical trade, where a new drug can cost millions to develop, but be copied easily.
Yes, the inventor is entitled to profit from his invention, and yes, he may require users to agree to indemnify him against their unauthorized copying. A life-saving invention that is arbitrarly expensive and reserved for the very rich is still better than it not being invented.
However, that's not what patents do. They restrict independent rediscovery, made all the more desirable when a solution to a problem is demonstrated to exist (by the first inventor), but kept secret and expensive.
Again, the argument is, "but we can't profit AND keep it secret". Tough noogies, I say.
So, restrictions against COPYING are fine, since ideas are properly the property of the thinker, however, restrictions against reinvention are not. Furthermore, the burden of proof should rest on the accuser, instead of the defendant, in such a dispute.
In Liberty, Rene
There are a couple of points to cover here.
The first is that ideas do not spring into the world from nowhere. At the very least there is a lost opportunity cost to the thinker as the time spent generating the idea could have been spent elsewhere. Therefore, ideas are not "free" as in "free beer". The fact that ideas can be reproduced at no cost must not overshadow the fact that they cannot be produced at no cost.
Second, ideas are often of very little use without a considerable amount of effort being put into the expression of that idea. For example, Hero demonstrated the idea of a steam engine but it took a lot more effort to make something useful from it.
I find myself in the peculiar and uncomfortable position of defending those who support the concepts of patents and copyrights. Perhaps those institutions are not completely bankrupt but can be salvaged through modification.
I suspect that the first place to seek to modify these systems is in the length of time that the protection is in place. My understanding is that the purpose of these systems is to provide reasonable compensation to those who produce the work. The issues then become "What is 'reasonable compensation'?", "How can 'reasonable compensation' be determined?", and "How can 'reasonable compensation' be delivered to the creator?".
The second place to consider modifying these systems is to be more rigorous in the care taken in defining what is being protected. The protection is to enable the creator to collect compensation on his production, not on the production of others.
On the other hand, while I think the statements above are true, it may be that the greatest compensation to the thinkers and developers of ideas is perhaps in the more abstract concept of making the world a better place for all. I.e., the "stone soup" model.
People working with their neighbors, not against them. The OSS community is all about such communism. Everyone according to his ability. Everyone according to his need.
I'll admit that humanity is not ready for total communism yet. There are too many lazy sods out there who whould try to just live off the system, be parasitic rather symbiotic. But the fact of the matter is that we've made a prototype, and its working! Now all we need to do is figure out how to make it spill over into the rest of the world!
He is, after all, a rather obscure(d) figure, and
/. -- he exposes property (both physical and intellectual) as government-granted monopoly, rather than an indivudal, fundamental, undebatable right.
I've only seen him selectively (very selectively) quoted in Libertarian evangelistic literature.
I suppose the fact that he was a libertarian socialist (dirty word!) will tick off a few people on
-Chris
>>There is a difference between VOLUNTARILY sharing ideas and being FORCED to share ideas.
Strawman.
I am against intellectual property. That does not mean that I want to force others to disclose all that they know. However, when somebody has *voluntarily* shared information (be it a book, software, whatever) to me, I do not believe he has the right to restrict what I can do with that information. That is, he should not *force* me to keep the information from my friends, or *force* me not to make a copy or two.
There is force involved in property, and it is usually on the behalf of the owner, if not directly by the owner. In most cases, it is the squatters who are "defending."
-Chris
Stood for the "Union" of "Soviet" "Socialist" "Republics."
The USSR was as much socialist as it was a republic. As a matter of fact, a few years after Lenin took power, he forcibly abolished all of the socialist associations (like worker-controlled factories) that had developed during the revolution(s).
Statist socialism is a misnomer. It still retains the distinction between "non-using owners" and "non-owning users" that exists in capitalism. Under capitalism, the tribute that users pay to owners is called "rent," "interest," or "profit." Under state socialism, all of these are rolled up into "taxes." This is why I usually refer to soviet-style systems as "state-monopoly capitalism."
-Chris
Why should I work my ass off to make a living when my landlord (who is too lazy to get a job) takes a far larger percentage of that?
I have no problem paying money to productive (or disabled) people, but people who sit at home and leach off the tenants are another story.
Capitalism appealed to me as a testosterone-soaked teenage boy, but I soon grew out of it.
-Chris
...I have long felt the same way. People raised a huge stink when Eric Allman wanted to - OHMIGOSH!!! have people pay for Sendmail!!! I'm so tired of all of the Socialistic/Communistic crap that is spewed concerning giving EVERYTHING away and treating those that don't with a large amount of disdain. We're all individuals. If you want to give something away for free that you created, excellent. That is incredibly noble and selfless, but don't get down on people who want a some monetary compensation for their efforts. By the way, I'm not at all a fan of how M$ does business as well, so don't even go there.
----------------
"Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds." - Albert Einstein
Co-founder and designer at Music Nearby: http://musicnearby.com
The biggest problem with patents is that they don't allow for the concept of independent creation. This happens a lot more than people might think. It happened with the Calculus, developed by both Newton and Leibnitz without any exchanges between them (the matter of who was the first to devise it was later disputed by them). The precise details may vary from one person to the next, but it's almost as if ideas have a life of their own. That the wheel would never have been invented because of the death of a particular ancient does not strike me as a believable scenario. While I think credit should be given wherever credit is due (and none taken where it's not), there truly should not be a monopoly on ideas. People should be free to realise their ideas without restriction.
"In prison you just have to shut your eyes and take it. Here you have to shut your eyes and give it."
does the benefit of slavery only benefited a few or did the impact of it affect the entire economy of the south? if the latter is true, doesn't that increase the effect beyond a few? i'm not disagreeing. just looking for a clarification.
we prefer the short direct route.
"IP sucks and stuff." works well.
Why do so many people believe that IP is some right that exists in Nature? The framers of the US Constitution knew this, that is why IP is in there to promote social good. When it ceases to promote social good it should be revised, restricted, or eliminated. The US courts have fallen into the exact trap pointed out in this editorial. As a conservative/libertarian, I'm remiss to state that this is mostly the result of Republican-appointed judges who fail to make these distinctions.
I think it is perfectly reasonable for Monsanto to receive compensation for their research -- that is why genetically-engineered material should be copyrighted for a short period (say five years to ten years). In fact, seeds have one of the the best watermarking systems available! What the lawyers need to figure out is what constitutes a work and what is fair use.
Patents simply do not benefit the social good of more and better software production. It doesn't benefit hardware production uniformly, either. Why not recognize the purpose of patents and then adapt them to the technology that they are meant to protect?
You own 'em until you open that big mouth and blurt it out. Also, if I independently have the same thought, I ought to have as much right to it as you
> It should also be noted that as many people didn't believe blacks to be fully human, they
> didn't really count as population (except for the purposes of determing the number of
> congressional Representatives).
Amazing how distortions can propagate. You could say the same thing about women during this point
in US history. Get your facts before making generalizations. The pop-count was a very
political issue at the time. Very similar to Y2K taking a statistical census or a physical count.
People have many motivations both ways. Some motivations could be considered racist, some could
be considered revisionist...
> In my opinion, the current intellectual "property" scheme benefits almost no-one. People
> simply do not realise what freedoms are lost because they've never experienced anything else.
> Since lost of intellectual freedom is not nearly as severe as the more common losses of property,
> the right to own property, or of one's personal freedom to be (prison/execution), the effects are
> far more subtle and it's much more difficult to get people to think outside of the box of what a
> world without IP walls could be like (no offence intended towards a common protocol in use on
> internets).
The world is not as B/W as you make it out. How many people own real property (that's not morgaged
to the bank)? How many people own IP (that's not assigned to the company they work for)? Are not
many banks and companies "public" companies?
In fact, most people make a big deal out of "property" when in fact the govt or the public
pretty much own everything. It only seems bad when you are only a small part of the owning entity.
1. If everything that could be sold is property, the football ticket which gives you the
opportunity to sit in a chair is property. Interesting philosophy, things that expire after
3 hours can be considered property. I'd call that a license or a contract (in strict legal terms).
In fact, they can kick you out of a football game by simply refunding your money.
2. My guess is the harm that silly SW patents do is negligible, but if you are willing to
provide evidence of the contrary, I'll be happy to look at it. Most of the stuff floating on the
net about "harm" is no more than urban legend. Silly patents are rarely enforced and when they
are enforced only serve to push people to make more innovative products. The "real" patents
are cross licensed so much that your head would spin.
As for remaking IP laws, I favor an additional tax on copyright/patent royalty income (15%-20%) range
with a healthy $1M deduction. This would encourage people to cross-license patents and
copyrights w/o punishing the small guys.
1. Semantic arguments bore me. No sense in defining the word "property", it is an axiom which
could get debated forever. Contracts are not rights, they are agreements that have termination
clauses (if there are no termination clauses, it is by definition not a legal contract). Most
people associate a right with a thing that has no termination clause (1st amendment, etc)...
but then again, that is also a semantic definition of a "right"... why is this sounding like "point"
and "line" and "parallel postulate"...
2. Fear of being sued is a common excuse for everyone who doesn't want to take a chance.
Note: you cannot be liable for incorporating a patented instrument into something you make under
fair use.
For example, I could write a program that violated everyone of microsoft's patents as a "test
program" for a class. If I posted the source code for this "test program" on the internet, I violate
no laws. I sell it to people who don't use the software, I violate no laws. Only if I sell it to
Fred who has the intent of using it, then both Fred and I are liable as soon as he uses the
software (if he never actually uses it, no problem).
However the action is civil and the remedys are also civil (i.e., money). Microsoft can make me
stop selling it to Fred and other Fred-like people. Microsoft can collect economic damage.
Microsoft cannot send me to jail. In fact, Microsoft cannot punish me in any way if I win
the civil case or I stop selling and pay economic damage. Economic damage is how much money they
lost because of Fred. There are strict limits on economic damage and punitive damage can only be
a fraction of the economic damage.
In fact I don't even have to pay microsoft. My company can delcare bankrupcy and microsoft can
get squat. There are no debtor prisons in the US. Only if you go into business against the patent
holder can they really do anything to you at all. If microsoft sued me for patent infringement on
SW that I was giving away, I wouldn't even hire a lawyer. I'd show up, represent myself, and move
for a summary judgment so they couldn't talk the judge into something horrible.
If you are writing free SW, patents shouldn't concern you at all. Only people who want to sell
ideas patented by others should be concerned. If you're out to make a buck, be careful.
People who don't know their rights are doing themselves a big dis-service. Maybe a miranda
warning should be required for civil actions.
3. Patent royalty is often only granted for small parts of products. Let's say a widget sells for
$1 and costs 80c to make. My inventions is worth 5% of the value of the widget. I collect 1cent
in royalties. $1M bucks royaties is 100M widgets. This also illustrates how limited economic
damage is in patent infringement suits.
That's why unless you are a direct competitor, most companies would rather settle and cross-license
a patent than mess with the civil-legal system.
Most companies ignore patents, and try to come up with their own patents. When sued, they cross-
license patents. This is usually a non-issue.
Borrowing from the SAT... Patents are to companies like...
a. praise to hackers
b. pain to masochists
c. suffering to sadists
d. all of the above
1. no response desired.
2. The owners of foo and bar would have to prove that they would buy their stuff instead of
downloading your free stuff. This would be pretty tough to prove if your stuff was free and they
charged money (unless you were getting some stuff on the side). You are off the hook, but the
people who downloaded it, well they might have some legal trouble if the foo and bar owners
decided to go after them. This is just one of the reasons big corporations don't like free sw.
BTW: I didn't say they wouldn't win, they would probably win the patent suit against you. They
just couldn't collect any money from you (well maybe $3 or so...). Not worth their time.
3. Tax is on earnings. Gov't doesn't set royalty rate, just taxes whatever you and the other
company agree on. This is a strong incentive to agree to flat rate $1M buyouts and cross-licenses
instead of micropennies. People who contribute get to share in the patent pool. People who don't
contribute are left out (a perfectly capitalistic way of looking at things)...
Somehow I doubt research and invention have speeded up. If this were actually the case, who
;^)
would need those patents that people are complaining about, they would be obsolete.
Copyright, as many people mentioned, doesn't protect ideas, only the expression of ideas and
derivative works. If research and invention were so fast, who would care? Just rewrite the
code using the latest technique. Well maybe that code was worth something after all...
I think it is precisely that the stituation today is about the same as in the past when they came up
with all this stuff is the thing that most annoys people who want to change everything.
Remember 17 was chosen to be about a generation in "people" time. The founding-fathers really
disliked this "pass-it-to-your-kids" stuff, but thought you should be able to take advantage of
it while you were alive. If we are all living longer, shouldn't it be longer too? You should
think carefully before you advocate a change in this number.
BTW, IMHO, I think 15 years is about the right number (people retire earlier these days), the
WTO thinks 20 is better. 6 of one, 1/2 dozen of the other...
Note: I'm not saying there aren't bad patents (there certainly are). Maybe the proper response
is to form an ACLU like org to fight them (that's how bad laws are fought). My guess is that the
industry is too greedy to fund such an org.
Brief and to the point. Definitely worth a read.
If it ain't broke, don't fix it.
If it is broke, figure out why before fixing it.
As of the TRIPS and Paris agreements, I think all patent stuff was made the same between countries.
In the US if you didn't get anything from selling, you are covered (no economic damage). The guy who
got it for free, however, might have to pay.
In the US, the user of the patent pays, intermediate parties don't pay. The reason you
are protected if you don't charge for your SW is that the user didn't pay you.
Any problems you (as a seller) have are related to the UCC (uniform commercial code) and the implied
T&Cs (terms and conditions). If you don't explicitly state in your sales order T&Cs that
your fee doesn't include royalties for patents, you have implicitly collected royalties from your
customer. If you don't forward those royalties to the patent holders, they can sue you for the money.
Example: you go to the store and buy a toaster with cash. You give them the cash, they give you
the toaster. Under the law, you just completed a transaction subject to the T&Cs of the local UCC.
The UCC gives both the seller and the buyer certain "standard" rights that people have come
to expect. One of them is that you get to use the toaster with its intended use w/o paying Fred
2 cents royalty for using his "uniform browning toast coils" everytime you want to make toast.
Under the law, you as the toaster owner can claim that you paid the royalties to the seller and Fred
has to sue the seller for his 2 cents. If, however, the seller gave you the toaster for free
(as in free beer) you could be liable for the 2 cents if the seller didn't pay Fred the 2 cents.
The TRIPS agreement doesn't apply to the UCC which is usually slightly different from state to state
in the US, but close enough. In the EU, I don't know how the UCC implied T&Cs look like, but my
guess is that on this matter they are the same.
I could be wrong though, I hear TV and Radio usage taxes are common in the EU which would imply
that the local UCC T&Cs are quite different.
Once again, somebody has decided to spread the rumor that patents and copyrights imply property
;^)
when in fact exactly the opposite is true (at least in the US).
In the US, if you apply for a patent on something, you explicitly are donating it to the public
domain. Yes you read that correctly, the public domain. The catch is that the US govt (the keeper
of the public domain) pays you for your largesse by granting you exclusive use of your invention
for 17 years. After that time, your idea is truly in the public domain. Nobody can reclaim that
idea into private property.
Students of history will recall that the patent and copyright protection was not originally in
the US constitution, they were added because of a perceived flaw in the legal system (which was
pretty much borrowed from england) where people could pretty much own ideas forever.
In fact the US can be proud in being one of the first modern states to engage in government
sponsored industrial espionage when they stole the plans for a assembly line from a company in
England around the US revolutionary times (1700s).
It was in this spirit that the original patent and copyrights idea was born. The philosophy is that
everything belongs in the public domain (eventually) and short time exclusivity is the way
they thought of to get people who come up with ideas compensated. Otherwise it was thought that
people would keep their ideas hidden where they do nothing to advance society.
WAKE UP!!! all you people who say "only if we had a way to leave everything in the public domain
while compensating people for their ideas"... WE ALREADY HAVE SUCH A SYSTEM!!!
You may argue with 17 years or 20 years (or whatever) is too long a time, but you guys are 250
years too late. Can't you admit that somebody already came up with a pretty good system? or does
your youthful ignorance get in the way???
Even the hallowed GPL code will eventually fall into the public domain (copyrights expire 75 years
after the authors death). After that nobody will be able to enforce the GPL/NPL/APL/XPL/etc/etc
provisions... My decendents will be able to copy all the code into a private bundle and never
have to distribute any source code
Nigri Wrote:
The farmers who bought that seed signed a contract with Monstanto agreeing not to save any seed corn. They did this for the economic advantage of not having to worry about where they spray their noxious chemicals around. The fact that they'd like to break that contract should earn them no sympathy from anyone. If they had refrused en masse to sign that contract, Monsanto would have had to find another way to sell that seed.
That's right. Roundup Ready seeds are genetically engineered to handle mass saturation of Roundup pesticide. This is dangerous to our groundwater and food supply.
Monsanto plans to soon release Roundup Ready seeds with terminator genes which will prevent second generation seeds from germinating. Many environmentalists and geneticists have stated concerns that such terminator genes could be passed into the general crop population via pollen and potentially kill off our original crops leaving only corporate produced seeds available to farmers. Such a move is insanity if we consider survival a worthy goal for humanity.
It's one thing to support intellectual property laws for books and other creations. But to interpret IP laws in such a way that allows such basic survival needs as our food supply to fall in the hands of only a few corporations is asking for human extinction. We will go the way of the dinasours like this, or at the very least risk losing critical crops by genetic blunder.
I note that the European Union is fighting United States through the Word Trade Organization demanding that the EU stop labeling genetically engineered foods as such. In other words the United States is demanding that Europe ban labeling their food supply (which they consider a national health concern). Europe doesn't want to ban the sale of these foods, just label them like we do with our nutritional content labels. How is that trade restraint? It's not, what it shows is that companies like ADM and Monsanto have our congress and executive branches at their mercy. If this continues soon the worlds peoples will be at their mercy as well.
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Someone previously asked if I prefer food production be monopolized by the government instead of international corporations.
I respond with:
a) This is not the case today, nor has it ever been in the US. Most food prduction used to be handled by small farmers, this changed over the eighties as banks over-lent to indivudal farms and then collected the land from all the mortgage defaults during Paul Volker's (former head of the Federal Reserve board, see: "Secrets of the Temple," by William Greider) planned 'recession.' Guess who wound up with all that land? It wasn't other small time farmers.
b) Even if the government did nationalize all the farming land (which would be patently unconstitutional) at least we would have some power via our voting rights. All those idiots claiming the private sector provides better efficiency and more freedom forget that we citizens have _no say_ over how private industry manages these properties.
I'm not advocating communism, just pointing out that the private sector gives citizens far less freedoms than what is constitutionally protected by our government. The only people with power in the private sector are large scale corporate share holders, and they're such a nice small club, now aren't they?
Let them eat cake my ass... if this continues we may have no more grain producing crops left. What happens then?
mcelrath wrote:
And the government monopoly currently controlling our food supply is any better? Are you arguing against monopoly (which doesn't make sense -- government) or corporate food production (which also doesn't make sense...unless you want to live in a communist state).
I respond to this at the tail end of my comment Such a contract undermines our food supply. I look forward to your response.
DuaneGriffin wrote:
Quickly, one problem is that even if only one generation of neighbouring crops is killed off because of 'infection', the farmer that owns them is still going to be mighty pissed. If it happens every year then they need to buy from Monsanto or go broke (and any suggestions that they can rely on the legal system for protection or redress are hereby laughed at in advance).
Excellent response. I wanted to make a similar statement but I was at work and got distracted by my responsibilities.
Basically it comes down to this: while by definition one can't create a fitness function for a system which won't self replicate, this doesn't mean that in the first iteration of that function it can't do something damaging. For example, consider the influenza epidemic of 1918, which killed a good 1% of the worlds population. Within a few months this flu killed all the susceptible people and died off, but it still killed a whole bunch of people.
In the same way if the Terminator Gene, in say soy, becomes airborne in pollen and germinates seeds from a standard soy crop growing in another farm, the result may not be a stable subspecies of soy but it would still prevent that neighboring farmer from reusing his/her "legally" produced seeds.
Suppose you lived in a third world country and all your next seasons seeds died off because a neighbor decided to grow Roundup Ready soy with the Terminator Gene; you would have no actionable recourse. Do you honestly think this farmer would be able to sue a company thousands of miles away situatated in another country (which seems hell bent on providing as many advantages to it's corporate campaign financers as possible)?
No, you would be fucked.
Finally, does anyone here think it makes sense to be copywriting genes produced by accident (or God if you like) from one species and then implanting those genes in another species and copywriting that new subspecies??? I understand the concept of patenting a process (such as a new transgenetic technique), but for our government to allow copywriting something which is available in the ambiant environment is bad policy.
Never mind the fact that for almost any of these species we haven't transcribed its genome. We have no idea what the long term consequences of introducing these new subspecies will be in our environment. We have no idea how they even work. We are fucking with life without even the slightest idea what might happen... bad policy.
Luddite my ass... I live for cool technology, but I don't like the idea of potentially trashing the worlds food supply, in what amounts to a huge experiment in transgenetics, without any public or scientific peer review.
Should Monsanto (and other Agri business and genetic engineering firms) be allowed to own genes as intellectual property? Monsanto calls saving seed from Roundup Ready(tm) crops and replanting in the next season "Seed Piracy." (*) Do you want a corporate monoploy controlling our food supply?
This is not just about software, the intellectual property laws are so broken that we're about to hand over something as critical to our survival as food production to huge international agri-businesses like ADM and Monsanto without even thinking of the long term consequences to our survival. This could get BAD....
* See April '99 issue of Harpers for an important article on this issue.
You are never forced to give away anything you develop. However, if you take someone else's sources and modify them, you must comply with their terms, which may require giving away your changes to *their* code.
Your statement that the RoundupReady (tm) crops are leading to an increased application of this herbicide (and therefore increasing the risk to groundwater supplies, etc.) is completely wrong. In fact, the major advantage of the RoundupReady line of crops is that it allows the farmer to apply the herbicide very early in the crop cycle and directly to the area where the seedling is growing. This leads to less herbicide being applied and less need to till the soil between crop rows so that less wind erosion is an added benefit. The entire selling point of this particular germline is that it allows the farmer to use less herbicide. This is a big cost savings to the farmer. Your statement about the supposed danger of the terminator technology which causes GM seeds to produce plants whose seed are sterile would be quite laughable if it were not the case that these luddite fears are in danger of threatening research and development of other useful GM technology. Here is the most simple and direct refutation of this claim that plants with terminator genes will cause the rest of the food supply to disappear: it is a non-stable system in evolutionary terms; it is not self-sustaining because the terminator line is by definition one which cannot perpetuate itself. The termiator genes could not "infect" the original plant stock because when it comes down to measuring the fitness of the germline in that age-old dance of reproduction the terminator pollen automatically loses. The only way that it can spread into the general genetic mix is if mutation turns off the terminator part of the genetic modification.
Frankly, I prefer writing like that to a lot of modern stuff where you have to plow through loads of fluf to get to the point. You can accuse some philosophical texts of being written in a difficult-to-read way, but this wasn't one of them.
I think what Tucker clearly demonstrates is that ideas are not like physical things. That being the case, we should not base our laws regarding ideas and such on analogy with laws about ownership of physical things. It may be that some form of copyright/patent etc. is justified by utilitarian arguments of the type we've seen like encouraging invention, but they can't be justified by saying that an idea is like a car. We have to weigh the benefits of accelerated innovation stemming from IP law against the benefits of wider spread use and lower prices of innovations which would come from abolishing IP law. The later is usally missing from the arguments in favor of IP law. I'm not sure where I come down on this yet.
... ".
Also, eliminating IP would not force anyone to reveal anything that they want to keep private. If you want to keep your source code a secret and release only binaries, you can. What you lose is the legal right to prevent people from copying the software and possibly reseling it. Though I suppose you could use license agreements: "I will sell you this if you agree
And I think the article was very well written, people just no longer appreciate good writing.
Less things patentable (software algorithms).
Include discovered genes in there. If some one creates a strand of DNA that doesn't exist in nature they can patent it. If they come up with a process for isolating and sequencing genes, they can patent it. But, they should not be able to patent naturally occuring genes.
Genes are a natural resource. For example bauxite is the ore that aluminum is extracted from. If we apply the same rules to this that are applied to gene patents, aluminum would be patentable because it took research to discover that aluminum in the rock.
Well, genes are extracted form human and animal cells. Just like the aluminum is extracted form the bauxite. So, genes should not be patentable since they are a natural resource.
Leave nuclear power out. There is so much knee jerk reaction to anything nuclear that the facts can't be separated form the fiction.
step 1) person has brlliant idea
:-( knowledge is power and if you take away that knowledge how will the little guy compete?
step 2) person shares idea in good spirit
step 3) M$ has money, develops said idea, gets more money, everyone else is shafted.
anyone else forsee this tragedy happening?
what's to prevent M$ or other bastards from hell
taking an idea and developing it to further their own ends leaving the rest of us shut out because they had the cash the fastest. having no IP is a double edged sword! think about it, where's the motivation for a new company to come in with a new idea if all ideas are free. only those with the most money will win
History has always been re-written... how many people learned what they know about Slaves and Native Americans from freakin' John Wayne movies?
/. make backups? I can only see back my last 30 posts or so...).
Slavery WAS used in the North also. I'm not talking about agriculture, but there were bricklayers, masons, even engineers.
Granted, it wasn't widespread in the North, and was something more hidden as the USA inched towards the Civil War, but it was not exclusive to the South. In this perverted scale of things Slavery benefitted "everyone"... except the slaves. Farmers had more money to buy goods from the north when they didn't have to pay their workers - does this also benefit "only" the farmer??
Slightly different, but when the rich pay no taxes they have more money to spend on us po' folk, but that's not Slavery they call it Trickle Down Economics (trickling what, their urine?).
In a sense, we're ALL condemned as slaves in an increasingly networked and global sense. Very few of us can completely walk away from our work and start a different life, that's why the really destitute spend the most money on government-run lotteries.
Sometimes I think we would be better off farming and village life than we are today, watching our freedoms get eroded if not by the government (Clipper, digital wiretaps) and also by industry ("Microsoft document fingerprinting" which I first bitched about here LAST YEAR... admittedly I said MS was working on it for the chinese gov't so they can kill students more efficently. Does
Sorry if I sound so depressing. It *IS* a nice spring day out here in Mass., USA.
The GPL requires that if you do distribute, the recipient of that distribution is not restricted in redistributing it.
i just wanted to add a little onto the topic, it is my belief that "ideas" are indeed a part of nature. And being such they tend to come to more than one person around the same time due to the fact that there is a "need" for it to manifest itself. I know it may be strange to think that ideas find people to use them, and not the other way around. However there are times when ideas manifest themselves before a use can be found, and in these rear situations, the true value of the idea is unknown until the time when it can be used. The only value that should be made off of an idea is in the implementation of it. What we as a society have to do, is to use the law, not as a unbending ruler, but as a guide that can be adjusted to the situation. Due to the exponential growth of technology, we should examine each industry, and see how long a patent should last, allowing for the creator of the "product" to gain a decent amount of financial rewards, yet allow the rest of society to benifit from it. Each industry should be able to decide what is of value and what is a hinderance to the advancement of itself.
Its spelt "L-I-N-U-X", but pronunced as "Free Beer"
Let's say that a physical object is usable by everybody simultaneously in all places, etc. I just made a ring for my wife. I do NOT want anybody else to use it. Is it my property? (privacy / uniqueness issues)
With the assumption that all physical objects are usable by all simultaneously for all of time without exception then idea of property would likely not exist and if it did it would be dismissed as absurd. The concept of 'give' would not exist because the concept of 'value' to that ring would not exist at least in terms of rarity and uniqueness. If your wife "valued" the rink because she thinks it looks nice then she would simply wear it. or if you "valued" it because you think it looks nice on your wife you would simply suggest that she wear it.
With the above assumption NOTHING IS UNIQUE
I am a very good chairmaker. I made an excellent chair for myself and everybody else can/does use it simultaneously with me. A guy comes to me and says that his butt is differently shaped and he wants a different chair, but he is not a chairmaker. How can he persuade me to make a chair for him? (stimulus issues)
The same way it is done today. You (the chairmaker) would "value" that something the guy is capable or producing simply exists. The guy wanting a chair would care "whose" it was because he could use it anyway he simply "values" its existance.
StickBoy
--- "The problem is not that the world is full of fools, it's that lightning isn't being distributed correctly." -- Mar
Please read the Declaration of Independence
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness.
You have the right to believe in God or not to believe in God but the United States was founded on these principles.
---
The Actual cost of developing software is extremely high when you compare it to the cost of the hardware it is supposed to run on. Qualified and talented Software Engineers are hard to come by hence their salaries are high, simple supply and demand. The resulting man hours required to put together a large project cost in real time dollars (no abstraction here). Hence there is a definite price associated with intellectual endeavors. If the cost of this work is so high that one entity cannot afford the cost of it's development, or it cannot find a recourse for renumeration then it is less likely that this product or idea would be developed however not unlikely.
One of the biggest sources of pride for me is that I can derive my source of income from pure thought. The fact that I can design a better architecture or elegantly abstract a process into code is a major ego boost. According to my experience fewer are the number that can than those who can or maybe just willing to. I am not against sharing my ideas I usually give of them freely by instruction or tutelage within my peer group. I am opposed to a mechanism that will make it harder if not impossible for companies to get renumerated and consequently pay me my comfortable and well deserved wages. Those who can do! Those who can't should buy!
"My Opinion is My Opinion and Another person has not easily a right to it" F. Nietzsche
This is interesting. Never knew that. I did know that altruistic authors used to assign copyrights to orphanages, but never knew why. For instance, 'Peter Pan' was assigned copyright to some orphanage.
Hmmm. Learn something every day.
You have a very shaky understanding of American history. Slavery benefited a tiny minority of the population (at least in the South), while the 80% or so who didn't own any slaves ended up doing the bulk of the fighting (and dying) in the Civil War to defend the institution.
This adds even more credibility to your argument, though--if copyright slavery only benefits a very few (and, indeed, it does--for example, there are but 5 major record companies today, and they each insist on owning the copyrights of their artists' work), then it should be abolished in the name of equality.
"Even genius needs a competent technique."--Robert Fripp
Property in produced goods is not the same as property in lands or property in ideas.
This must be evident to anyone who considers it, for only production gives rise to an absolute and perpetual claim of ownership. Could one man claim absolute dominion of the whole soil, all others would be his slave, for none could exist without his consent. Ideas, too, cannot be held out of general use indefinitely, or we might remain in caves while the descendents of the first discoverers of fire and the wheel would be the only ones permitted to use it.
Yet, there is an interest secured by intellectual property, limited in scope and duration. For it is an incentive, not to invention itself, but to disclosure. In the absence of IP, every idea would have to be independently discovered by each person who would employ it, for those desiring a competitive advantage would be strongly inclined to keep their ideas as secret as possible.
Peace and love, y'all
Besides stating that Congress could not prohibit slavery, the Dred Scott decision also declared that the Missouri Compromise was unconstitutional. A few years earlier, the Kansas-Nebraska Act was passed that had already nullified this compromise.
To refresh your memory, the Missouri Compromise was essentially a tit-for-tat arrangement; one free (Maine) and one slave (Missouri) state admitted to the union at the same time. Under this new arrangement, the states entering the union could decide for themselves their status (free vs. slave). The states that allowed slavery essentially realized that they would eventually lose parity in the Senate with the free states.
I tried posting this earlier, but I must have screwed up (or maybe moderated to a -400).
You have made a lot of fine points and I don't want to get into a nit-picking battle, but...
Dred Scott was in 1857 and that decision also declared that the Missouri Compromise was unconstitutional. That part of the Dred Scott Decision was critical, IMHO. The Kansas-Nebraska Act came a few year earlier (also related to the Missouri Compromise).
Lincoln declared that the secession of the southern states was "illegal" (I can't remember the actual legal aspects). Hence, there was no actual breakup of the US and the conflict was a civil war. Of course the two sides greatly disagreed over this legal wrangling, and on Lincoln's decision to maintain occupancy of southern forts (like Sumter).
IMHO, the War Between the States was the result of political and economic conflicts between the north and the south. The issue of slavery was inherent in both issues. However, the war did not start with the northern mantra of "Let's free the slaves." Most people, back then, were not that enlighten.
BTW, I'm surprised that no one has mention John Brown (Kansas and Harpers Ferry). If they made a movie about Brown, RMS would be cast in the lead role.;-)
canadian healthcare is what it is. how 'good' it is it depends on your angle. if you are looking out for yourself only (i'm not criticizing that at all), it is not good. it is designed to provide the best possible care for everyone, and overall, it does that better than the US system. the downside is that it is inefficient, and does not meet it's goals for the reasons you stated. i prefer the us system myself.
Have you seen Ironstayn vs Supergovernment yet?
i have to call bullshit on that one Ben. nothing is stopping you from helping out those less fortunate than yourself. i only have a problem with it when it is forced on me with an implicit threat of violence. sure it sounds extreme, but think about it. what happens to those who refuse to comply...?
Have you seen Ironstayn vs Supergovernment yet?
The problem with nearly every debate on intellectual property rights is the same -- people are working from different basic assumptions. And, when boiled own to the essence, there is a grid of two sets of two basic assumptions -- the axis of property is theft vs. property is a natural right, and the axis of principle trumps practice and practice trumps principle.
RMS/FSF/GNU is a shining example of a group that, at the bottom (albeit maybe not conciously) holds both that property is theft and that practice thiumphs principle. If the only reason for the existence of physical property is only that multiple people cannot simultaneously have the same object, then you are denying that anyone has a *right* to property. Property is simply a social construct that assigns control to an individual enen though everyone has an equal _right_ to posession of the item.
Now, that means that RMS and ESR have the same basic view, as does a socialist who has decied that socialism is impractical and *supports* intellectual property on practical grounds. They all agree a *right* doesn't exist, and property is only a social construct for purely practical ends. Their fights are the same as fights between Anglicans, Lutherans, Catholics, and the Greek Orthodox -- of no real interest to outsiders, except as they may affect the outside world. This is essentially the mixed economy position of the American left.
A second position is that of the Lockeans (and their derivatives), who hold that property is the natural right of the person who applies labor to the unowned. This view naturally leads to the acceptance of intellectual property, since it is purely the product of [mental] labor. This position calls property a right and puts principle above practice -- property might lead to all sorts of undesireable consequences, but it's less important than protecting the principle. This is the unmixed capitalism of the American far right/libertarians.
The third position accepts the principle that property is theft, and puts principle above practicality. They are communists and socialists.
The fourth accepts the principle that property is a right, but puts practice over principle. These are the mixed economy advocates on the American Right.
Let me be blunt. I prefer the Communists to either variety of the mixed economy advocates, and the libertarians to the Communists. Give me an honest socialist who defends principle. At least they won't cheer a tyrant because he "gets things done."
You make money from it not by artificially restricting the free flow of ideas, but by providing something that only you can provide: a service or concrete product based on your great idea (and the great ideas of others before you). One often hears adages like "people don't pay for computers and software, they pay for solutions"; you become a provider of solutions, by putting together the free ideas and presenting something in a form people actually want. By saying "do you want fries with that?".
Funny you should say that; I've bought many Red Hat CDs from vendors other than Red Hat, with exactly the same content I could have got from Red Hat. Many independent distributions are based on the Red Hat one. The software they distribute is under a license that ensures that can happen. It was *already* a commodity product, long before Red Hat got there.
So how do Red Hat put food on the table? Because that name recognition is a powerful thing, and because they sell the services of collating, assembling, packaging, distributing and supporting those free ideas. It is in their best interests for those ideas (software) to be spread as far and wide as possible, because that's not their product. Their product is a service, and without the ideas being freely available, their product doesn't exist.
Without any form of IP, the GPL is redundant; the entire purpose of the GPL is to *remove* the IP restrictions from the licensed software.
The essay's argument stands. IP is an artificial restriction on something that by its nature cannot be restricted. To gain by restricting the freedom of others is tyrrany.
--
--
The Nose Who Knows
The number of people winging about the English in this article is disturbing. Its just slightly archaic and complex, in the style commonly found in philosophy departments and victorian literature. Anyone half literate should be able to read it, but I guess that excludes a lot of Slashdotters,
"IP sucks and stuff" doesn't actually tell you why, though. Its just a dogmatic statement of opinion.
The author did in fact attack IP laws as they stand. He was not arguing in favour of freedom of ideas (which, I agree, the current system supports), but in favour of free use of their physical manifestations. If you read the article, I think its pretty clear.
I do not believe it is possible to talk well about politics in the kind of language usually used for technical discussions. Much of the heat and frenzy generated around discussions in these forums seems to be due to just that mistake. You actually need to be more precise, and I believe the kind of prose used in this article is good for that purpose.
As to this being an international forum - yes it is and that is a general problem with the internet. One needs to speak English, and quite a wide range of types of English to get along. I do not see that as a reason to reject things written in more complex English, especially if they would be hard to put in simpler language.
And yes I am condescending. You must admit that many people here do not give a good impression of their own literacy or education.
The patent system was set up to try to stop this from happening. It was felt that a limited monopoly would encourage people to make their discoveries public, thus serving the public interest better than they would as trade secrets.
Although I agree with this article, I have to say that there is a case for intellectual property which I find it hard to deny.
Given that most things are scarce and our world relies on an economic system that assumes scarcity, how do we encourage people to have ideas if they cannot profit from them by making them artificially scarce ?
And the government monopoly currently controlling our food supply is any better? Are you arguing against monopoly (which doesn't make sense -- government) or corporate food production (which also doesn't make sense...unless you want to live in a communist state).
1^2=1; (-1)^2=1; 1^2=(-1)^2; 1=-1; 1=0.
In the EU monsato are the causing great problems with there huge power in the US Goverment being used for trade embargo's to prevent the EU being able to lable foods produced from GM modified crops and GM Hormone enhanced livestoke as such.
It is very scary to see the might of the US political system being used in such a neglect of the right of the individual to know what they are eating.
In the UK this is causing a massive backlash with store chain after store banning the use of GM products in their own label brands.
When will big companies learn to stop bullying the public into accepting products they are not ready for?
How about a GPL for GM seed crops for the third world which don't require expensive nitration and fertilization.
Your landlord probably has a mortgage on your property, he/she is responsible for the property taxes, water bills, and maybe some of the other utilities.
He/she is also responsible for the upkeep of the property. In short, most of what you pay in rent, the landlord does not keep for him/herself.
What's your solution? Should you just be given a place to live? And who will pay the builders, upkeep, etc?
Of all the comments I've ever posted, this is definately one of them
The difference between a socialist and corporate state is that Socialists don't trust corporations, but they do, for some reason, trust a monopolistic, centralized government.
Of all the comments I've ever posted, this is definately one of them
What's really different now is that class barriers are gone. The poor can work up to middle class or even rich, the rich can fail and become poor.
In the Middle ages, you were a noble or a serf, and you stayed that.
Of all the comments I've ever posted, this is definately one of them
I find that in many cases the people in the piss-shit crap conditions brought it on themselves
A personal example, my wife has a friend from work who lives in essentially a ghetto. This girl is hard working, makes a decent salary, (more than my wife in fact) so why is she living in poverty? Because she is living with a worthless guy who pisses away her money, doesn't work, sits at home all day and plays Nintendo. He's in trouble with the law, etc. And despite the fact that everyone tells her that she has to leave him, she won't hoping that he'll change.
Is she a victim of capatalism? Or her own stupidity?
What about the compulsive gambler who blows all his/her money? Are we supposed to come up with a social system that makes sure that they always have enough money, despite the fact that they are more likely to gamble it away than they are to provide enough for themselves?
Of all the comments I've ever posted, this is definately one of them
So researchers at Universities don't get paid in money? Hmmm, that's news to me.
University research typically does not generate its own funding. It usually comes in the form of grants which come from either evil corporations that made the money by exploiting IP laws or from the benevolent government that got its money by taxing the profits of the evil corporations who exploit IP laws
At any rate, I fail to see how your education research example can be a valid model for the whole economy
Of all the comments I've ever posted, this is definately one of them
One comment on your posting:
There isn't anything requiring a person to disclose his or her thoughts. However, what the article very successfully argued was that if I happen to figure out what you were thinking, you don't "own" those thoughts and therefore I can duplicate the results of your thoughts. "If someone hoards their own knowledge and manages to create a superior product then I'll choose on product merit, philosophy." Fine. So I decide you're charging too much for your product and decide to come up with a product to duplicate your idea. What this article is saying to me is that the latter practice should not be illegal. Currently, assuming "someone" had patented enough of their idea, this practice would be illegal. This is a Bad Thing(tM).
It seems rather disingenuous for you, an admitted atheist, to try and define what a God-given right to life would look like. Even allowing that you are doing so "for the sake of argument", please share with us where on earth (or heaven) you found this notion that a God-given right to life == immortality. I know of no theologian (or even layman) who would say this.
As to the death penalty: why should you, an atheist, care? You have no moral foundation in your philosophy for declaring capital punishment to be wrong. You have no moral foundation (other than raw subjectivism) for making any ethical claims whatsoever.
Yes, I know you atheists get tired of hearing that, but the fact remains. In a materialist world view there is no basis for anything other than relativistic, subjective ethics, and consequently no atheist has any standing on the basis of his philosophy for condemning the moral choices of anyone -- not even someone trying to murder him.
DFL
Never send a human to do a machine's job.
Given that I haven't tried to assert my view of that up to now, I don't know what you're talking about. I'm "relieved" in a perverse way that you are consistent enough to admit that ethical nihilism is the only option for the materialist. You realize that this applies to your epistemology too, don't you?
The fact that I am not God has nothing whatever to do with whether I can know if there is a God-given right to life. I'm not you, either; and while I certainly don't know much about you I do know that whoever wrote the note to which I'm replying claims in it to be an ethical nihilist. My point: God is able to communicate, just as you have done. And he has done so in the Bible. And consequently anything we say about a God-given right to life must be based upon that.
An omnipotent god isn't a complete foundation for morals and ethics either. What gives that god the right to declare what is right or wrong?
God's omnipotence is really completely unrelated to his authority to declare right and wrong. That authority derives from two or three things. In no particular order: ownership. He created and owns everything, including you and me, and he consequently has the right to declare how what he made and owns should act. Secondly, what he declares to be good is a reflection of his own character. We are made in his image, and consequently we ought to emulate that character. The fact that we don't do so demonstrates our own sinfulness and rebellion against his rightful authority. He made us to be like him in our character, but we rebel against that. And we are wrong, not him. And he is perfectly just in punishing us for it.
DFL
Never send a human to do a machine's job.
I hope that since you have the honesty to admit that these are the logical conclusions of materialism, you will likewise have the wisdom to reject it and turn to Christ.
But if not, then I truly do pity you, because to willingly choose to cling to a philosophy that leads nowhere save to despair is really sad.
DFL
Never send a human to do a machine's job.
Copyright protects an expression of ideas. It doesn't protect the ideas themselves. Why do you think it's perfectly legitimate for you to quote from a book without paying the author? Why do you think it's perfectly all right for you to appropriate the ideas expressed in a book as your own? Because copyright doesn't protect ideas. It protects expression: written words.
On the other hand, it is illegitimate for you to appropriate someone else's words as your own. That's plagiarism. It's cheating, and if you try to sell them, it's a crime.
Copyright is what makes the GPL work: the author of code has a right to dictate the terms under which his code is used by others (if he releases it at all). If RMS is actually opposed to the legitimacy of copyright (and I don't know, but I surely hope he isn't) then he is one of the greatest hypocrites alive today. He would then be guilty of using something he abhors (and something he wants to eradicate) as a tool for advancing his cause. It would be like an anti-gun zealot using an Uzi to get rid of all those 2nd Amendment "fanatics".
Copyright is what makes the GPL different from public domain. Things in the public domain are free for anyone to use in any way they choose, including taking code proprietary.
Copyright is legitimate. Patents are different because they restrict the use of ideas -- and I fully agree that this is silly. But copyright is a different story. Someone somewhere invested their energy in producing a tangible thing: their book/code/whatever. It is theirs, and they have a right to do with their property what they wish.
Finally, let me say that the premise of the article is incorrect. Private property is legitimate because God owns everything, and he extends to us the right to own things as stewards -- as his representatives. There is nothing whatever immoral about the idea of private property; people may do bad things with their stuff, but that's a separate question.
DFL
Never send a human to do a machine's job.
The time spent developing intellectual property does not have zero value. It can be spent in other ways; the fact that time may be spent in an activity that earns one money more than adequately demonstrates that there are costs involved in developing any idea, or in developing software, or in writing a book. The cost of writing the code is the value of the opportunities that you forgo in order to write the code. If I write free software in my spare time rather than taking a second job (or working even more on my main job), then the cost to me of the code I write is the money I lost by not working at a job.
There are costs associated with producing this stuff, folks. For anyone to say that, after bearing these costs to produce my code, I am now obligated to my code away, is denying me the right to be compensated for my time and effort.
It is a lie that there are no costs associated with producing Intellectual Property. And as a result, it is irresponsible and illegitimate for anyone to deny the producers of IP the right to be compensated for those costs in ways that they choose. The natural (and inevitable) consequence of doing so will be that ideas will dry up as people keep their stuff to themselves.
DFL
Never send a human to do a machine's job.
Wait a second. Didn't cyrix reverse engineer intel's 486 and were allowed to sell it? Doesn't pepsi compete with coke and coke's secret formula? How does owning a patent stop compition? All a patent does is stop someone else from competing by producing the exact same product. Why should I go through the effort of coming up with an original idea and have someone else sell it? If a second company comes along and make a better product, great. Society benefits. But, if all the second company does is steal my patent and sells the exact same product, how does society benefit.
Please!
I refuse to concede that any man's work should be thown to the wolves simply because no one else could match its value. This is what the anti-trust vultures of the Progressive era were thinking when they established the laws that let the U.S. Government break up Standard Oil and, now, Microsoft.
There is a very good reason those five major record companies exist - they've produced a fabulous product. Prior to 1995, you wouldn't have been able to hear that wonderful Pink Floyd or, for those of you with less cultured taste, Coolio - the record companies have mass-produced this aural juice for your consumption, and virtually created a field that wouldn't have otherwise existed. If they're skinning you alive in the process, god bless 'em! You're buying the product. And without them, you'd have never heard 95% of the CDs in your bookshelf right now.
Now, I do grant that the old system of record distribution and 'signing' of artists is hurtling toward a brick wall of major proportions - that is, the digital music distribution system. Our new system can very likely kill the traditional system, giving a cheap alternative to the fourteen dollar CDs they sell here in New York.
That's capitalism, though - for as long as you're willing to spend large dollars to buy a product, someone'll be happy to sell it to you. As soon as a large group of buyers decide it isn't worth as much green, the price drops. Supply and demand govern our society, and you needn't bitch about how the old establishment sucks when a better system arrives. The better system will simply crush the old one.
The compact disk industry you so despise grew out of the ashes of the old jazz music scene. I'm sure most of you hackers like being able to listen to CDs while you read slashdot, whether you're listening to the CD itself or an mp3 rip. Thanks to this vile, dirty, evil capitalist record industry, you're listening to music at home, not just in a Jazz club every sunday night.
Capitalism is the most dynamic, productive, and moral socio-economic system. Your bitching won't change the habits of those you buy from - your collective wallets will.
Ideas come unbidden from nowhere. They are often had by many people simultaneously. It is impossible to tell whether a person has truly had the idea, or is just repeating it. Since ideas have no physicality, there is no possibility of witnesses, or evidence. Therefore, ideas are not subject to the legal process. That's the primary problem.
This all came together under patent law in this way: You had an idea. You spent time and money turning it into a product. You patented the product, in which you exchange ownership of the product design for exclusivity of it's use for 17 years. Competitors had the choice of licencing it from you, or redeveloping the product by spending their own resources to create a different implementation of the idea.
The 'idea' is nowhere given protection. Nowhere! Not in original Patent law, or in copyright. Only the expression has protection. The legal concept of 'intellectual property' outside of physical works is very new. Everyone pretends it's an extension of the old system, but that only makes sense if you believe that ideas are property. The problems we're seeing are the results of this assumption: Ideas create devices. Devices are property. Therefore ideas are property. It's a faulty syllogism.
The patent system is generally good. There are only a few tweaks that it needs, most related to the ill-thought-out additions that have been made recently. Specifically, gene and software patents. Genes are 'forces of nature', which were unpatentable until they changed the law to encourage private genetic research. (They should now own up to the consequences, and fix the mess.) Software tries to have it both ways: with patents and copyrights, trying to steal the best features of both. (the ease of copyright for performances, and the intellectual lockout of patents) How can the same code be both a 'written work' and a 'device'? Either category is a poor fit, but using both is abysmal! Algorithms clearly need their own category.
Howver, I resist the idea that patents are broken. The only factor which has really changed since the founding of patent law is the speed of innovation. 17 years is just too long these days, except for truly incredible inventions. We perhaps need a less onerous "3 year" patent.
Jeremy Lee | Orinoco
If you have an idea and you want to make money from it, set up a service that uses the idea internally. Don't try to charge for identical copies of the output.
Of course, he assumes that the majority of the population wants to be good and help their neighbor
Nearly our entire legal system rests on the time-tested notion that the above premise is absolutely false.
We have implemented the Leviathan, for better or worse.
The so-called "new economy", which supposedly rewards the creation of good content while minimizing the cost of delivering the content (towards zero eventually), the only way people are going to be able to make a buck is to have some sort of IP protection.
Unless you can propose some radical economic system that drives the cost of production and distribution towards zero, rewards content creators, and yet somehow offers no protection for IP, then please enlighten us. Oh, and please don't offer any ideas where I am required to live on some "standardized income" that does not differentiate between varying demands in society.
It is a good argument, and I agree with most of it, but I think that the information age has thrown a curve in it. Since any electronic work is now infinitely reproducible, should, say, id games be prohibited from copyrighting their work? Who would pay for Quake II if it was available everywhere, without fear of punishment -- or if multiple vendors could resell it at their own prices?
On the other hand, certain aspects of information systems automatically punish proprietary standards. TCP/IP is the protocol of the Internet, in part, because anyone can run it or write their own implementation without paying royalties. If MS decided tomorrow that NT servers on the Internet would run *only* on, say, NetBEUI, they'd alienate a huge percentage of the world. And the Internet would collapse like a souffle' topped with bricks.
In short, I think the proper tack here is a situational, utilitarian one, not an inflexible, dogmatic one.
$_="06fde129ae54c1b4c8152374c00"; s/(.)/printf "%c",(10,32,65,67,69,72, (74..76),(78..80),(82..85))[hex $1]/eg;
Many believe that the Civil Ware was sparked in part by the Supreme Court's decision in Dred Scott.
This is the case where the court held Mr. Scott did not have a right to bring a law suit to challenge his slave status because he wasn't traditionally consider a human. Only citizens could bring law suits; only humans could be citizens; Dred Scott was not considered human in the American tradition at the time; thus, Dred Scott (nor any black person at the time) could bring a law suit.
This result infuriated Northerners, and has been cited as one of the reasons for the war. Your comment that asserts blacks freely joined the Confederate Army and were treated with dignity seems a little spurious. Could you cite your authority for that statement?
Exactly. I doubt many would defend intellectual property as *actual* property, since it is clearly a social construct (so is "real" property, but that is another story). Protection of intellectual property spurs development (perhaps even toward that eternal ear of corn mentioned in the essay). As long as society values technological development and wealth, then monopolistic IP seems to be a rather effective way to do it! Forgive my armchair empiricism; I'd love to hear an argument about how technology can be better encouraged in a world without IP...
Here is the most simple and direct refutation of this claim that plants with terminator genes will cause the rest of the food supply to disappear: it is a non-stable system in evolutionary terms; it is not self-sustaining because the terminator line is by definition one which cannot perpetuate itself. The termiator genes could not "infect" the original plant stock because when it comes down to measuring the fitness of the germline in that age-old dance of reproduction the terminator pollen automatically loses. The only way that it can spread into the general genetic mix is if mutation turns off the terminator part of the genetic modification.
This is a straw man - our food supply is disappearing no time soon, with or without the advent and wide-scale deployment of this technology. However, there are VERY serious concerns that are raised that cannot be dismissed in such a cavalier fashion. For some more extensive discussions of this issue see a previous slashdot discussion.
Quickly, one problem is that even if only one generation of neighbouring crops is killed off because of 'infection', the farmer that owns them is still going to be mighty pissed. If it happens every year then they need to buy from Monsanto or go broke (and any suggestions that they can rely on the legal system for protection or redress are hereby laughed at in advance).
Secondly, in a hybrid the 'terminator' gene may well be 'hidden', and may not manifest for several generations. This has obvious and very nasty consequences. Again, I refer you to the above link for more info.
Forgive the lack of appropriate terminology, IANAGOMB (I-am-not-a-genticist-or-molecular-biologist).
- "I never could learn to drink that blood and call it wine" - Bob Dylan (Tight Connection to my Heart)
Actually, his discusison of property may or may not remove it as a "right" depending on your strict interpretation of "right". It is not a natural right, but in fact (physical) property is a necessity for civilization to progress. He clearly stated that in the article. This elevates it, given the reality of the world, to a right because we chose civilzation and that requires concrete property as a right to function. The undebateable nature of this right is granted once the basis of civilization being individual initiative is accepted.
This part, at least, should be very palatable to people here. The IP examination is what will raise hackles, in my opinion.
I'm not sure about the socialist angle, I don't see the equal liberty goal espoused here leading directly to socialism or Marxism. In fact, off the cuff this would seem to be anti-Marx. The only way to get rid of property is to have all property collectively "owned" which is only possible in a single world Marxist collective. Otherwise, even with separate Marxist collectives, you replace the individual property argument with a collective argument with different dimensions, but the same dynamics.
There are such physical things that people use simultaneously without anyone really bothered by the fact that the guy next to him is using the same thing he is.
There are times when the intellectual greatness of Isaac Newton is pondered by all in a certain place. That's basically the gist of this article. Ideas, once expressed, can be used by all at the same time.
Of course, I was also thinking about Air, the Sun, and other necessities that apparently are exempt from property laws.
Finally, just a curious question. maybe rob could even do a poll. Can anyone own thoughts? (Corporate or otherwise) This addresses a lot here, including the flip side of IP: patents.
I think I'm going to have to go with the Free Thoughts Foundation. Hmmm...
ALL HAIL BRAK!!!
It costs millions to genetically engineer a new seed. If they didn't have IP protection, they'd never be able to regain their expenses...
-- Don't Tase me, bro!
Dred Scott doesn't seem like a plausible cause to me. The primary even leading to the war was *Southern* secession. Why would the South secede if they "won" the slavery issue in the Supreme Court?
Further, if the war *started* because of slavery, why wasn't the Emancipation Proclamation made *before* the South seceded? The war clearly became a war over slavery, and tensions over slavery can certainly be cited as reasons for the South feeling pressured, but Dred Scott looks like a battle the South won.
-- Don't Tase me, bro!
> Why do you think the SEC exists in the U.S.?
The Glass-Steagall Act of 1933 was passed because the Rockefellers were trying to raise the costs for their competitors, the House of Morgan (see _Quarterly Journal of Austrian Economics_, Vol 1, Issue 1, Spring 98).
The Interstate Commerce Commission was the first federal regulatory body. It was created at the behest of those that argued that the railroads were acting as a cartel and doing crazy things like charging different prices depending on destination! The ICC's job was to regulate prices. The first ICC commissioner (a former railroad lawyer) raised the discounted rates and, for the first time, the railroads were able to ENFORCE their cartel.
If greed is so evil, how do you keep the greedy from running for office?
-- Don't Tase me, bro!
Consider the drug DMSO. It's been around for a long time... so long that the patent has expired and anyone can produce it.
Since the patent expired, some researchers have found evidence that DMSO may be a cure for arthritis. However, any company that wanted to market DMSO as an arthritis cure would have to spend over $500 milion to get approval from the FDA... but they would NOT get patent protection. Once Company A spent all that money, anyone could then sell their generic brand.
I can't *prove* that this is the reason no one's bothered to spend the money to get it approved, but I have my suspicions.
How do you propose to create an empirical test to see if innovation will stop without IP? I can't think of any, short of abolishing it and see what happens.
-- Don't Tase me, bro!
> Lessening the amount of money to get that approval would, IMO, be a better way of "fixing" it.
The reason it costs so much is because of the all the testing done to "prove" that it works and to test the safety.
After the recent fen/fen (sp?) disaster, it seems unlikely that the FDA will seek to make drug approval any easier.
There is certainly a LOT of room for improvement with current IP legislation. The Patent Office clearly has issued some insane patents; the distributors seem to hold the copyright on music rather than the artists; the lifetime of an IT patent is insanely long for the modern world; the cost of litigation prevents challenges to IP; etc...
Any reform, however, has to face the modern political realities. The FSF foundation has made a difference because they didn't have to change any laws. But if you wanna take this revolution to Washington and abolish (or even lessen) IP, you'll have every large corporation on the planet against you...
-- Don't Tase me, bro!
Actually, Canada is a hybrid, leaning strongly towards Capitalism. The economy is primarily capitalistic, but the "social safety net" guarantees minimum necessities to everyone (living on Welfare isn't fun, but it can be done, and essential medical services are free). If you want to have spending money, you'll need to work for it. OTOH, if you start a business venture and it fails, or if you get laid off from where you're working, there's a limit to how far you can fall.
It is the direct reward for effort that capitalism provides that drives production. In a _purely_ socialistic economy, altruism is the only incentive for effort, and production suffers badly.
However, the safety net is nice to have. It makes walking the tightrope a lot less stressful.
And yes, I'm Canadian.
That time is gone no matter what you do -- restricting (or not restricting) others' access to the fruit of your labor will neither return that time to you, nor require more time and effort from you.
On the contrary - if I write proprietary software, then the investment in time and effort is repaid financially by the people who of their own free will, even with alternatives choose to pay me for what I have produced.
Further, on the basis of this expected return, I can get backers to fork over money _now_ so that I don't starve while spending months developing my product.
If the product was to be given away, then virtually all of the expected returns would disappear (distribution is free on the 'net, and tech support doesn't cut it finanically). There go my backers, which means that I can't afford to write the software in the first place.
Would the free source community develop the software itself? Possibly. But not for all projects. Think of how much coding effort is done by all paid programmers in any given year. Some of this coding is redundant; working on competing products with identical features or feature sets that are perfect subsets of other products. However, most of it isn't redundant. This represents the total strong demand for programming (there is additional demand, but not enough that someone actually forked over the money to have the programs written). Now, think about it. In order to satisfy this demand, you would have to have _that_ _many_ programmers working full-time, or several times as many programmers working in their spare time. Assume that someone waves a magic wand and declares that software may *only* be developed with open source and can be duplicated at the cost of duplication by anyone who sees fit. I don't see enough free-time programmers to fill the demand for coding. I seriously doubt that the masses that were formerly paid coders will put in 40-hour weeks for free. They have to eat.
So, either you find a way of paying the programmers for their efforts, or else most of your code just doesn't get written.
As far as methods of paying programmers are concerned, someone posted an interesting exploration of that a while ago. As you work through the problems that arise and their logical solutions, you wind up with something that looks a lot like a proprietary/capitalistic model. Think carefully about this.
There are other problems with this that are just as large. Binaries can be decompiled and the algorithms extracted. This is a fair bit of work, but as was illustrated in a previous thread, it can still be a lot less work than developing, testing, and fine-tuning a very complex algorithm in the first place. Also, industry spying would be legal under this scenario. If a competitor manages to extract the idea, though any of several espionage methods, you can't punish them, as the idea is declared to be free.
There is also the stagnation effect that stems from trade secrets that another poster referred to previously, but that's another issue.
Eliminating IP may not explicitly force people to reveal private information, but in practice it winds up having the same effect (providing detailed information at a cost lower than that required to come up with it originally, without compensating the original researchers/developers/etc. for their work).
This has been done to death. Programmers of course also have to eat, but:
1) programmers can be paid to program (which they usually are anyway), rather than for programs -- paid for the services they render, not code they create. The payers, of course, would be those interested in having code that does certain stuff, not the least of them being the government (a-la NSA research grants).
This too was already addressed by another poster, responding to a previous article. As I felt the points were insightful, I'll cover them here:
If an application would be very valuable to a specific organization, then they will fund its development under this system. It will get written.
If an application is valuable to a large, disorganized user base, OTOH, then there is nobody among the users who can hire developers on behalf of all of them. What happens in this scenario?
One approach is for the developer to put a beg-screen in the product asking for donations, a la the old freeware programs that were floating around BBSs a decade ago. One problem with this is that, for an application that takes many man-months to develop, you aren't likely to recoup your investments this way (did _you_ dontate to the authours of any of the freeware that you used?). A more pressing problem is that I can't write the software and hope that money eventually comes in - I need a very substantial amount of money before I even start working, so that I'm sure that I won't starve while I code.
Another approach to solving this is to ask around for donations _before_ I start developing. The example in the original post was to pass around a contract to anyone who might be interested in the product asking them to pay me amount of money if they want me to start developing the product. There are several problems with this. One is spam. I have to distribute to all _prospective_ users. If only one in 10 is interested, then by statistics 90% of the offers that any user receives will be junk mail. Another is a guarantee that I will succeed in producing the product. If I'm writing a word processor, then this is pretty definite, but if I'm asking people to help me write a true AI, then it is considerably less certain. Less extreme projects may be better bets, but will still have risks. There is also the freeloading problem - people will be reluctant to pay me to develop the application if everyone else gets a copy anyways. By and large, most users would rather just sit back and let someone else do the development. People should be more altruistic than this? Maybe they _should_, but throughout all of history, on average, they _aren't_.
So, what if, to address the risk problem, I pass around a contract where people only have to pay me after I finish the product and make it available? Well, a huge fraction of these people will default on their contracts, as the product is now freely available. Can I hunt them down and make them pay up? Not for the $1 or $10 or $100 that I was charging them as a development share.
Now, what if I do something slightly different, and give each investing user a copy of the product, but restrict it so that it isn't distributed to the public for, say, 2 years? People who want to be able to use the software will be more likely to pay instead of freeloading, as freeloading involves waiting a couple of years. As I'm handing out physical CDs with the product on them, it's a fair bit harder for someone to stiff me on their development contribution, too.
And wait, this is sounding a lot like the standard commercial model, isn't it?
The only difference is that I'm postulating a 2-year expiry on copying instead of a 20+ year expiry, and I'm postulating that I'm charging a reasonable development price instead of gouging for what the market will bear. The first can be done if patent and copyright laws are reformed, and the second will occur if there is competition. Competition won't be hard, as my souce is available after two years, and if I'm gouging too heavily, someone else can step right in and make a cheaper product.
*That* is why I ask for reform of the current system instead of its abolition. The current system arose for a reason.
2) They can change money for services related to the code, not for code itself.
Like what?
People keep bringing this up, but I have yet to see something that will pay me my current programming wage. And I'm currently working as an intern for the equivalent of $14 US/hr. Tech support pays considerably less. The 'net makes distribution at near-zero cost easy. Further, there is a huge disparity between the number of coders needing to be employed and the number of personnel that Red Had or pick-your-free-software-related-company employs with other tasks.
Fundamentally, these are answers to the ethical problem concerning ownership of information. The problem does exist, and simply ignoring it (and treating information no differently from other forms of property) is not an answer.
And these are my rebuttals to those answers. I have nothing against Open Source and Free Software existing - but unless you can demonstrate a workable system that employs the same number of programmers as the present one for the same wages, I'm not going to abandon the proprietary model completely. I *do* need to eat.
It's only your "rightful compensation" because currently the law gives you rights to restrict distribution and you would carry out the work in expectation of doing so. That doesn't justify continuing with such laws. In the absence of those laws you would not expect to be able to restrict distribution and if you chose to put in the work knowing that your return would be limited then that would be your problem, just as with any other unprofitable field of endeavour. And of course, if you could find a way to make money out of it in the absence of those laws then that would be your "rightful expectation" in those circumstances.
So, you are saying that the value of my work is only that which I can expect to get back if I freely distribute the result? (zero)?
By that logic, nobody should be paid to code. There aren't enough hobbyist programmers to fulfill users' desire for programs.
If I spend 40 hours a week writing useful code, then I had damned well better be paid for doing so.
This is quite correct. The remedy for this is for people to write to their representatives and lobby for the laws to be changed. This isn't perfect, but it does ensure that the laws at least approximately reflect the will of the people.
What I am asking is that people _think_ about what the laws should do, and act accordingly, instead of saying "gimmie!". Like I've said in other threads, I have no problem with free software existing, and I would be happy to see software patents expire after a couple of years instead of 20+. However, I think that there are good reasons for proprietary software and patents existing.
For the vast majority of software, it takes _much_ less effort to crack it than it did to write it in the firstplace. Development of a good-sized application or game takes many, many man-months.
Now, re. your second point; by that argument, if I run a chip company and one of my employees steals the detailed plans for a processor made by one of my competitors, I should give him a bonus for his hard work.
What I would actually do is fire him.
The amount of effort that the employee puts into his action is overshadowed by the fact that he is doing something very illegal, for which he should be severely punished.
Software piracy (or theft, if you prefer that term) isn't as earth-shattering, but if Joe Cracker can take the product of _my_ effort, crack it, and then give it out to my clients, then I would certainly hope that the law stomps him for it. If he wants to compete with me, he is perfectly able to write his own software. If he wants free software to exist for the application, it _can_ - he just has to write it himself from scratch, devising his own code and his own algorithms in the process.
freely distribute the result? (zero)?"
It is damned wrong that you can expect nothing back if you have free distribution. If Richard Stallman did not show it clearly enough, the whole OpenSource thing is to show you the contrary.
Nope. I've gone over this several times in other threads, and have yet to see a scheme proposed that would result in the same number of programmers being paid the same amount as under the present system. I'll post a link to the most detailed of these messages in a reply to this post.
The gist of the argument saying that open source provides ample revenue is that 1) coders will still be paid to code by people who need the software, and 2) coders can make back money on distribution and support. The first doesn't apply to disorganized markets - like the market for a word processor or for a game, that no single entity will foot the bill for - and the second doesn't provide enough jobs and doesn't provide anywhere close to the current pay scale. Programmers aren't overpaid by a long shot, either.
"By that logic, nobody should be paid to code.
There aren't enough hobbyist programmers to
fulfill users' desire for programs."
Programs have their use. This makes it more unnecessary to have IP laws on them. If distributing a painting earns you nothing, you might not have the motive to produce it (some will, anyway). But if distributing programs (say, a word processor) do not earn you a penny, there will still be places (say, in the office) where the need of the program exceed the cost of producing it. Programs still get written.
Again, nope. Not most of them. See above. How are you going to get ten thousand users to shell out a dollar each for the development of a word processor or simple game that takes four man-months? How about something that takes several man-years? There are various approaches to this, but what winds up working most effectively is something that looks a lot like the present system. See my other message.
http://www.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=99/03/23/
If an application is valuable to 'the people', then let 'the people' form cooperatives to fund it. Well, such cooperatives have been formed -- the governments (which are supposed to represent 'the people'). This is at least how they are SUPPOSED to work.
So start up such a co-operative, and then approach me to write software. You wind up with the same problems as in the simpler schemes described - most of your users don't care about the product and are peeved at you for spamming them with information about your co-operative, and a very large chunk of the rest want to freeload.
Propose a scheme and demonstrate that it actually works in _practice_. If you can make the above scheme work, then great! I'll be the first to congratulate you, as I'll be getting paid.
As far as getting the government to fund development of needed software... Do you really think that the government is capable of accurately and relatively quickly assessing the software needs of the public and commissioning the software to be written? The problem with organizations that large is that they operate very _slowly_. This and similar problems are why huge corporations also tend to be beaten out by smaller startups eventually. But, I digress.
Present a practical alternative to the proprietary software, and _show_that_it_works_. Preferably by implementing it.
You did not offer a rebuttal. At most, you have shown that there is an easy 'crutch' for the real problem; you did nothing to show that IP is not problemmatic. This would be a rebuttal -- showing that the original point is false.
I don't have to show that IP is not problematic. Only that it is better than any alternatives currently presented, which is what I have already done.
To prove me wrong, you have to present an alternative that is demonstratably better than the current one or the one that I proposed (shorter IP lifespans), and prove that it's practical.
Caveat - I repeat that I am *not* calling for the proprietary software model to be the only one used. I simply feel that it is just the most effective at repaying the programmers for the _majority_ of software projects. Exceptions exist.
The purpose of law is to prevent someone from harming me (for arbitrary values of "me"). If I spend a year of effort to produce a product, and somebody who has spent no effort either leeches the source or cracks the binary and distributes it, then they have most certainly harmed me by cutting off my rightful compensation for my efforts. It is most certainly within the purpose of the law to prevent this.
Independent invention? Well, for an algorithm complex enough to be non-obvious, or for code that implements an algorithm or application, the Perl rule applies - There's More Than One Way To Do It. Somebody wanting to accomplish the same goal can _do_ so by other, equally good, methods. They don't have to copy my work and leave me starving on the street and owing large amouns of money to investors. Might they accidentally use the same approach that I did? For something sufficiently complex, that's not likely, but as long as they do their _research_ first, it's a non-issue. They can see what approach I used in the patents, and make sure that they use another.
Now, patenting the obvious. I agree that this is a problem and that this is wrong. However, this is a problem with the patent office, not with patents. Consider carefully who to chew out and for what.
If you take a material object away from somebody, they don't have it anymore.
If you 'take' their idea, they still have their idea, and in fact, their idea often becomes even more useful.
Therefore, material and intellectual property laws should be considered very differently.
Then he goes on to make some analogy about corn that a lot of people picked up as being a barb about Monsanto's silly seed ownership policies.
The point is that he used obtuse and obscure language to say those things. I'm all for literacy. I understood the article just fine. I just think that uneccessary obtuseness and obscurity is a way for people to hide their fuzzy thinking and bad ideas. The Literary Critics new clothes as it were.
This is not to say that I disagree with the article. On the contrary, I think it raises a number of very valid points and deserves a lot of thought.
Need a Python, C++, Unix, Linux develop
Oops, I read it through completely, but I skipped the introductory header 'fluff'. Yes, the author is now excused for his language and phrasing.
Need a Python, C++, Unix, Linux develop
Gee, this happens even WITH IP law being the way it is. One wonders if IP law really has any effect at all on this scenario.
Need a Python, C++, Unix, Linux develop
It's interesting that these ideas have been debated for this long. Everything old is new.
As our technological prowess increases, the cost of manufacturing drops.
We have witnessed a revolution in the publishing industry in the past 10-20 years. Now, you can copy practically any printed work to practically any level of quality relatively cheaply. The same thing has happened for music, and we're beginning to see it happen for more complex manufacturing. We already have a 3D 'fax' that uses a polymer liquid and curing lasers to build up 3D objects from pure information.
Soon, the biggest cost in creating anything will be researching the idea. Property laws will begin to become obsolete because if your neighbor has something, you can cheaply make your own copy of it.
What is the role of IP law in such an environment? How can innovation be encouraged? The real goal of IP law has never been to assure some inalienable right, but to foster innovation. IP law can be measured not by how well it protects a person's intellectual 'property', but by how well it encourages the creation of new and useful ideas.
Do patents and copyrights do this effectively? It seems, from the existence of the GPL and the Open Source movement that our current IP laws don't seem to be helping that much.
Someone rightly pointed out that the GPL is an excersize of the current IP laws. That belies the fact that it twists those laws to purposes that I'm sure their creators never envisioned. Instead of using the monopoly they grant, the liscense refuses that monopoly, and denies it to all others. The success of this liscense, and the obvious innovation apparent in the community of people who abide by it are an indication that perhaps our current IP laws aren't serving the purpose for which they were intended.
There are a lot of questions to be answered here, and they need answering soon. Soon IP will be the only kind of property that has any real value.
Need a Python, C++, Unix, Linux develop
In academia the saying is 'Publish or Perish'. While a professor or graduate student may not directly reap the benefits of his work, his job depends on it. It is still essentially about money. Once tenure is had the neccessity to publish diminishes. Furthermore, many times the university recieves monies in exchange for the rights to the work. Universities are horrible models for development. Name one finished product that has even come from a university. The allocation of resources is poor. Those who get the most funds are those with the best credentials at the best schools. As if MIT or Harvard have a monopoly on intelligence, intuition, and the like. I'd say Universities are the least equitable, and the most inefficient way to produce anything. They also discourage risk.
There is a saying:
'Those who can, do. Those who can't, teach.'
A rolex is a finely tuned instrument. The ones that you see on the street aren't even remotely similar on the inside. The same does not apply to pirated software. A byte per byte copy is the exact same thing that you get from your retail shelf, as you'd get off your nearest jaurez pups site.
How exactly do you propose for idsoftware to make money, and thus continue producing excellent games, if I can create a site called www.iripit.com. For less than 5 dollars i'll fedex you a copy of any game or software on the retail shelf.
First off, if source code is physical why would algorithms not be physical? In essence, source code is just a bunch of algorithms
put together to form a bigger algorithm. So you are saying the set of algorithms is a product and should be allowed to be patented,
but the individual algorithms are not? What if I had the source code to do just the individual algorithm itself? Would that be
physical and hence morally patentable?
No No No No... An algorithm (technique) is an abstract idea and only becomes concrete when assembled into a physical program. You should not be able to patent the IDEA of, say, a spreadsheet, because this is an abstract concept. However, if you create a particular spreadsheet , them someone should not be able to copy your EXE and manuals and sell them as there own. The shame of it is that in most countries this is TRUE in patent law, its just that patent offices are so hopeless at enforcing the rules.
I find particularly offensive those companies that make hundreds of patent applications, for all kinds of obvious things, then sit on them until someone else goes to the trouble of developing them into products, and then says "Oh, we've got the patent on that. Give us your money!!". I think that all patents should be voided if it can be shown that the owner has made no effort (successful or not) to exploit the idea.
*--BigMan--- Time flies like an arrow.. but personally I prefer a nice glass of wine!
You obviously didn't understand the essay.
The essay argued that by the very same logic that states that you *should* be compensated for goods that you produce, you *shouldn't* own abstract things - ideas.
Paintings, books, produce - these are all *physical* things. It can be argued that source code is also physical - it is a product. It cannot be argued that the algorithms used in the software are physical - they are not products, they are mathematical constructs which were always there (anybody care to patent PI?).
As for your arguments for capitalism vs socialism - are you BLIND!? You claim that socialism is bad because overall it tries to do what's best for society and screw the individual - as if capitalism doesn't cause at *least* as much harm to individuals...
As to the privacy issue, I believe that that example would fall under copyright - not the *idea* of using a ring to symbolize marriage, but a specific *implementation* of that idea. I think that most are willing to cede implementation restrictions. Secondly, the example inherently depends on the concept of ownership while attempting to put aside the same concept - "*my* wife". Could this "wife" not be "used" simultaneously by everybody (no disrespect intended - this *is* after all a thought experiment) - is this "wife" really *yours*?
As to the chairmaker, he could persuade you to do it in many ways; he could do something of equal value for you (make you a better saw, for example), or convince you to do it out of a sense of pride or challenge or glory.
Another related issue is that of when it stops being your right. I won't try to argue with anything you have said, even though I'm not sure I agree to all of it, but I do think that an important thing to consider is postmortem rights. That is, if you die, do your descendants have the rights to your creations? If so, then for how long? Isn't it in the interest of mankind to have the process for, say, polio vaccination public? I think that that is what society and government are for: to decide when mankind's interest overrides individuals' rights.
Switch the . and the @ to email me.
Lastly, with farmer, there is no similarity at all. When a farmer gives out their crop, they can no longer use it -- material property is that way. if you give out source, YOUR copy of the source is still usable to you. But the time I have spent creating that source is gone, lost to me. Those minutes, hours, days and weeks spent designing, debugging, and coding the final item are the cost of that item - not the few cents needed to make a printed or electronic copy.
"Great men are not always wise: neither do the aged understand judgement." Job 32:9
Hmmm? I think I agree with the statement "ownership of information is unethical".
The problem I have is classifying source code as "information". The algorithms used within that code are information, for example; the way those algorithms are implemented are not.
If you need an analogy, think of a screenwriter - that industry has some fairly rigid rules about the format and content of a screenplay; that's the algorithm. Copyrighting or protecting that algorithm is unethical. Copyrighting or protecting the pieces of work that was created using that algorithm, IMHO, is a just being civil.
"Great men are not always wise: neither do the aged understand judgement." Job 32:9
There's a reason they treat the symptoms rather than the cause - most civilized societies recognize that in order to get to and treat the "cause" would mean implementing Orwellian-like policies about what is and isn't acceptable thought.
Remember, innocent until proven guilty... and you must act in order to be proven guilty; otherwise, your condemnation is based on the predicate that your accuser understands what you might do - and that you should be punished not for what you have done, but what you might do.
Patent law and IP law fall into the same baliwick - they are an imperfect attempt, by an imperfect society, to ensure that the rights of some people are protected in an enforceable way.
"Great men are not always wise: neither do the aged understand judgement." Job 32:9
I have to disagree with you, to a certain extent. You say, rightly, that coming up with
a new -idea- is not the problem. There are billions of people in the world, and the tiny
fraction of them that are geniuses can come up with more than enough ideas.
However, you say that you support the 'patent and copyright systems.' In my view, there are
two sorts of 'mental labor.' There is the actual process of discovering a new mathematical or
scientific principle, and then there is the rigorous appliciation of various principles that
have been discovered to a real world problem.
Patents supposedly do not, and certainly should not, protect the first kind of 'idea' - that of
a discovery of a fundamental principle. As for the second kind of idea, that can be protected
by copyright. One can copyright a program, a blueprint, a notebook full of calculations, a
design schematic. The labours put into the detail work can be protected and compensated.
The very sort of thing that patents best protect is exactly what you mention in your example -
it's not that hard to -think- of a steam engine, only a little harder to cobble together a
barely functional prototype as 'proof of concept.' Similarly, I'm sure millions of children
around the world have 'invented' the maglev train in their heads long before it was a reality.
The basic principles of magnetism invite such speculation.
In a world as large and as well educated as ours, all of the 'clever ideas' will be thought of,
more than once. It's just a matter of seeing the application of the principle; and -that- is
precisely what the patent system is designed to protect. This allows the first person to cobble
together a prototype (which in the case of software patents is pathetically easy) to patent the
'machine.' It costs a little more, since you have to engineer with real parts, to do the same
sort of thing with physical inventions.
It seems to me to be reasonable to protect the fruits of intellectual labor with copyright, (look,
even GNU does it!), but I don't think that patents are anywhere close to the same thing.
--Parity Bit
--Parity
'Card carrying' member of the EFF.
Don't read this, my logic is probably flawed. :)
The whole point of Linux is open source. Meaning that peoples ideas are shared freely, which is pretty much the opposite of IP, afaik. And, all OS-wars aside, Linux is obviously not dead. The system works, and the reason people add to the collective pool of knowledge (embodied in source code) is simply because they want to see the system do a certain thing. I'm pretty sure thats why most (probably close to all) GPL'd packages are created to begin with.
And the Linux phenomenon is so much fun because it WORKS. Even Linux's competitors admit this.
--
Paranoid
Paranoid
Bwaahahahahaa.
The reason IP is important to a free market is to encourage innovation. While it's true that innovation would happen without patents, a bottom-line focused suit is more likely to pour millions into research and development if he feels the company will get a substantial ROI from the research. The returns grow if a temporary monopoly is granted to those who developed the new idea.
Stop using that language! You havn't paid any royalties to the creators of English! Thief!
Erik
Has it ever occurred to you that God might be a committee?
Has it ever occurred to you that God might be a committee?
--- Jubal Harshaw
More 'content'??
Has it ever occurred to you that God might be a committee?
Has it ever occurred to you that God might be a committee?
--- Jubal Harshaw
I claim that the idea "invention will stop if IP rights are weakend" is a completely unverified assertion, I have not seen any substantial proof whatsoever that this is true. I don't deny that it could be true - but I've not seen any serious study or experiment that verifies this. The reasoning goes "if they get no money for their work they won't do it". I believe that much R&D is duplicated today and much of the rest would be done anyway. Maybe a little slower in some areas, but all the people that does duplicated R&D today, will they just stop or will they go of and do something different??
What I'd like to see:
Shorter IP terms, a few years for patents and a few decades for copyrights.
Less things patentable (software algorithms).
Serious research in the field of IP rights (I know that's hard to do) to try to find better methods of rewasrd.
I'm highly sceptical to 'mandatory licensing', i.e. X per cent of revenues on patented/copyrighted ware goes to patent/copyright holder. This is because such rules would be very hard to get right..
Erik
Has it ever occurred to you that God might be a committee?
Has it ever occurred to you that God might be a committee?
--- Jubal Harshaw
A highly money generating business model.... Not that this 'invention' benefits mankind :-) :-)
Erik
Has it ever occurred to you that God might be a committee?
Has it ever occurred to you that God might be a committee?
--- Jubal Harshaw
The hard thing is to get the right isotopes of Uranium or Plutonium with high enough purity. That takes major industrial resources and IIRC the current "best methods" are somewhat secret. All western countries could "easily" duplicate the work required. The theory is is most public libraried together with a lot of other "fun" stuff... Fortunately all terrorists seems to be rather inept (at causing mass destruction)...
Erik
Has it ever occurred to you that God might be a committee?
Has it ever occurred to you that God might be a committee?
--- Jubal Harshaw
Previous poster set aside the issue of Gods existence, as I believing Atheist I cannot do this: Please prove the existens of the "God" object derived from the "Diety" class. After this please prove that the "God" object have granted you the capability of "ownership"
I claim that there are no "natural rights" (rights granted by nature). There are only rights granted by societies.
Erik
Has it ever occurred to you that God might be a committee?
Has it ever occurred to you that God might be a committee?
--- Jubal Harshaw
1. Why isn't a "right by contract" property? What is the definition of property anyway??
2. They do harm because "small fish" don't dare to go against them. Either because they don't know their rights or because they are afraid of being sued.
3. I don't want to say no to the tax proposal, but if the patented "thing" is only a small part of the product?
Erik
Has it ever occurred to you that God might be a committee?
Has it ever occurred to you that God might be a committee?
--- Jubal Harshaw
1. I was only nitpicking on "patents not being property". Without any kind of property I believe that society wouldn't function very well..
:-) :-)
3. I didn't read it that way, but I certainly don't know the mind of the poster. Reading it again I find I might've been a bit hasty.
4. I claim that noone has yet used the new method of the Diety class
Erik
Has it ever occurred to you that God might be a committee?
Has it ever occurred to you that God might be a committee?
--- Jubal Harshaw
So just because it's in the US declaration of independance I've got to agree with it? Talk about Imperialism.. Yes I don't agree with that part of it, let me dissect it for you.
1. The right of Life. If God had given you this then everybody would be immortal, looking at nature I can't find any such right at all.. And thats from a country with death penalty...
2. Liberty. Liberty of what!? Thinking free? No government can keep me from that! They can punish me if they find out bt they can't prevent me (short of preventing me from thinking at all)
3. Pursuit of Happiness. It's simple to make it harder for you to pursue happiness, but it's impossible (short of killing you) to make the pursuit of happiness impossible..
Finally: I'm a citizen of the Kingdom of Sweden and this country weren't founded on any such principles.
Erik
Has it ever occurred to you that God might be a committee?
Has it ever occurred to you that God might be a committee?
--- Jubal Harshaw
Lessening the amount of money to get that approval would, IMO, be a better way of "fixing" it.
:-/ Another thing to make IP "cleaner" would be to force the granting authority to pay lots of money if a patent was defeated on the "self evident" ( ;-) ) or "prior art" grounds (to whomever challanged the patent).
As for the testing. No, I can see no way of proving this or that but today I haven't heard of any serious (in effort) study on the effects of IP legislation. All the claims that "it'll ruin invention" is based on "it's self eveident". And "self evident" or "everybody knows" things are by my way of figuring plain wrong per definition... My suggestion is to lessen the terms and stop lessening them "when it starts to hurt". Finding "hurt" will certainly be hard
Erik
Has it ever occurred to you that God might be a committee?
Has it ever occurred to you that God might be a committee?
--- Jubal Harshaw
1. First you say it's boring and then you... Please tell me if you want a response, here or by mail...
2. So if I make a GPLed program that uses software patents foo and bar the owners of foo and bar have no chance whatsoever to win if they sue me for patent infringment (if I let everybody download the program from my web site or whatever)? This is news to me and to many others.. Thinking more about it, as it's OK to use a patent unless you sell it, I believr you're correct. Now they'll probably clim that free software that infringes on a patent "takes away their business".. I thank you for lessening my ignorance.
3. But how should the rule to determine how much of an objects value is in the patented part be constructed?? You were suggesting a tax by the government unless I completely misunderstood you...
Erik
Has it ever occurred to you that God might be a committee?
Has it ever occurred to you that God might be a committee?
--- Jubal Harshaw
Ahh, so they are allowed to "recover their losses"... Could be a lot if the free software is successful... Is this only in the US or in those wonderfull international agreements too?
:-/
I read you wrong on the tax issue, after rereading what you wrote I can't see why I misunderstood. I thought you had written about mandatory licensing of patents but missed the word "royalty"
Erik
Has it ever occurred to you that God might be a committee?
Has it ever occurred to you that God might be a committee?
--- Jubal Harshaw
Thank you for the explanation of the US law, I've started to look into the local (Swedish) law on patents and immediately found that computer programs are not patentable in Sweden, the law explicitly names computer programs. (1967:837 Patentlag, availible in Swedish only from http://rixlex.riksdagen.se).
I'd be interested if anyone knows of an url for the international agreements.
Then there seems to be a EU "Greenbook" on patents, it wasn't availible electronacally so I'll have to order it..
Erik
Has it ever occurred to you that God might be a committee?
Has it ever occurred to you that God might be a committee?
--- Jubal Harshaw
1. Patents are property, admittedly for a limited time but still property. Why? Because they can be sold and that makes them, in my book, property. If you disagree with this it would be nice if you'd define "property".
2. For the software business completely and utterly silly things are patented, its laughable... The basic idea is not completely without merit but for the software industry is does much harm. I consider the object of any "industry" to be "making life better for people" (By creating good, cheap products).
IP laws should not be abolished, they should be remedied.
Erik
Has it ever occurred to you that God might be a committee?
Has it ever occurred to you that God might be a committee?
--- Jubal Harshaw
You have a very shaky understanding of American history. Slavery benefited a tiny minority of the population (at least in the South), while the 80% or so who didn't own any slaves ended up doing the bulk of the fighting (and dying) in the Civil War to defend the institution.
This is certainly true. However, the slavery system was integral to the old Southern economy. It should also be noted that many who didn't personally own slaves believed in the insitution, or didn't believe there was anything wrong with--``I wouldn't personally own any slaves, of course.''
It should also be noted that as many people didn't believe blacks to be fully human, they didn't really count as population (except for the purposes of determing the number of congressional Representatives).
This adds even more credibility to your argument, though--if copyright slavery only benefits a very few (and, indeed, it does--for example, there are but 5 major record companies today, and they each insist on owning the copyrights of their artists' work), then it should be abolished in the name of equality.
Well said. In my opinion, the current intellectual ``property'' scheme benefits almost no-one. People simply do not realise what freedoms are lost because they've never experienced anything else. Since lost of intellectual freedom is not nearly as severe as the more common losses of property, the right to own property, or of one's personal freedom to be (prison/execution), the effects are far more subtle and it's much more difficult to get people to think outside of the box of what a world without IP walls could be like (no offence intended towards a common protocol in use on internets).
Cheers,
Joshua.
--jon. Postel is dead. May we all mourn his, and our, loss.
It costs millions to genetically engineer a new seed. If they didn't have IP protection, they'd never be able to regain their expenses...
``It takes hundreds of slaves to pick all the cotton and process it from a medium-sized field.'' Denying a fundamental liberty because it makes a certain business avenue possible is wrong. Monsanto will have to find a new profit avenue.
Which reminds me--Monsanto is in Chapter 11 and they may not be long for this world. They've had serious trouble competing, and they foray into bioengineering has been a last-ditch attempt to attract investment.
Cheers,
Joshua.
--jon. Postel is dead. May we all mourn his, and our, loss.
I would consider legislation to require all existing genetic material to be licenced under a GPL-like licence (which makes since, since genes really are an encoding for software) imperative. This would be an excellent solution the controversy over genetically modified plants and animals and the resultant foods--you can see the `source' (to the genes) and see what it does. It takes the fear away--at least it would for me. OTOH, having Monsanto creating seeds that spread infertility among plant crops is a criminal action tantamount to biological warfare, and no private entity should be allowed to do that. Spreading proteins that prevent proper reproduction is a weapon of mass desctruction and ought be treated so.
Cheers,
Joshua.
--jon. Postel is dead. May we all mourn his, and our, loss.
What was it that Gordon Gecko said in Wall Street? "Greed is good. Greed works." I believe that was it. Greed seems to be the entire incentive for doing anything worthwhile in this (or most any other) country. (Not necessarily the greed of the scientists that are doing the work, but the greed of the stockholders who are expecting to make money by funding the research.)
Greed is NOT good. Greed is evil! While there is nothing wrong with wanting to create a useful product or provide a useful service by which both yourself and others may profit, greed in the sense of wanting to benefit yourself without regard for others is very, very, wrong. While civil government is not called on to prevent greed, they are called upon to prevent wrongdoing, and almost all greed involves wrongdoing. Why do you think the SEC exists in the U.S.? Why do you think there is so much regulation of things like the air travel industry? Because greed prevents these things from functioning according the law of love, which should be our motivation for all that we do. If it's not, why are we doing it?
Since our entire economy depends on the ownership of ideas, I don't know how (especially with the world economy in its present condition) we could move away from the current system. Anyone else have any thoughts on this?
Richard Stallman and others have proposed many ideas on how such a society might function; you can read about them at the the FSF's website. Most of the ideas are pretty wild and sound very foreign to our ears.
But we must admit that the pure motivation for profit is not what drives a soecity to greatness. The motivitation to show love to our fellow neighbor what drives a society to greatness. Who is remembered with more adoration--the head of the East India Company or Florence Nightingale/Louisa Alcott? Who left a legacy of opression and who left a legacy of helping the hurting and sick?
Let us have Nightingale as our example. May we all do one tenth of what she did.
Cheers,
Joshua.
--jon. Postel is dead. May we all mourn his, and our, loss.
I suppose the fact that he was a libertarian socialist (dirty word!)
No, it's not! People are free to hold a variety of political beliefs. I dislike almost all major parties, and the libertarian part isn't there (yet), so I'll grant you grace. =)
will tick off a few people on /. -- he exposes property (both physical and intellectual) as government-granted monopoly, rather than an indivudal, fundamental, undebatable right.
I believe that there is a fundamental right to physical property in the same sense you have a fundamental right of control over your own person. Take a look at the average two-year-old: they all have real proprety down pat; you can't even keep your shoes in a corner without them attempting to bring them back to you. But children don't get the idea of intellectual property very well with the exception of plagiarism (proper attribution)--no child would feel guilty for repeating a joke, but every child would take offence if another took credit for their joke (or other idea).
Cheers,
Joshua.
--jon. Postel is dead. May we all mourn his, and our, loss.
Unless you can propose some radical economic system that drives the cost of production and distribution towards zero, rewards content creators, and yet somehow offers no protection for IP, then please enlighten us.
Go to this website and read. It has some very interesting ideas of how to musical artists could be paid by the very act of listerns and fans copying their music. I don't agree with the idea in its entirety, but at least give it some thought--there's more than just the present American system.
Stallman has written quite loquaciously on how such a society might function. Of course, he assumes that the majority of the population wants to be good and help their neighbor, which nowadays might be a misguided assumption. (That's required for any society to work correctly, though).
If you're a typical /. troller, though, don't read the GNU writings. Instead, just keep posting that we have to have the current IP scheme because otherwise we're all communists and there's no way to make money!
--jon. Postel is dead. May we all mourn his, and our, loss.
As for your arguments for capitalism vs socialism - are you BLIND!? You claim that socialism is bad because overall it tries to do what's best for society and screw the individual--as if capitalism doesn't cause at *least* as much harm to individuals...
The only reason socialism is wrong is because it condones one organisation (the state) bereaving everyone else (the people) of their property and then redistributing it as certain people in the state feel is `fair'. That is wrong--there is a fundamental right to property (as in physical proprety, like lands, houses, cards, food, your own person, &c.)
Capitalism by itself is worthless. Capitalism paired with a society that believes in conducting business fairly and honestly, performing good deeds for the less advantage, and not violating other's right to life and property works very well. But capitalism without ethics (or morality, if you want to call it that) is good for nothing--it's anarchy (and let's please not start talking about that).
Just remember: did your mother attend to your every need for the first year or so of your life because of a hope of making profit or because of pure love for a helpless infant?
--jon. Postel is dead. May we all mourn his, and our, loss.
While that's certainly a noble reason, it doesn't apply today. While many argue that reforming intellectual ``proprety'' law would result in too much upheaval in society, did not eliminating slavery result in the same upheaval? After all, many struggling farmers and widows and orphans depended upon slavery for their daily bread.
Cheers,
Joshua.
--jon. Postel is dead. May we all mourn his, and our, loss.
First of all, people are sheep.
Second, in order not to do what the giant corps want you to do, you need a couple things:
a) a choice.
b) knowledge.
You have to, first, know enough to recognize that something is being foisted off on you, then know enough about it to know it's bad. Not everything being foisted is bad, after all. Unfortunately, you can't be an expert on everything, and sometimes you just have to trust someone else's claims. (No, I have no evidence to back that statement up.)
Once you see something you recognize as bad, you may not have a choice to avoid it. It may be the case that all providers share the undesirable trait. They may even have persuaded the government to mandate it, or had it mandated over their objections.
Some things you can just decide to do without. Some you can't. Some situations are simply inflexible in their requirements. Sometimes you can't afford the preferable choice. Sometimes public funding takes the decision out of your hands.
There are risks to rolling your own solutions, too. I used to grow vegetables in a vacant lot by my house. I have no idea what used to be on that land, or what chemicals are in that soil.
The implication should be clear that the more you know, the less likely you are to get screwed. You also have to be motivated to sometimes make an extra effort, or pay more, or do without, and sometimes that still isn't enough.
Now think about what percentage of people are knowledgeable (not smart) AND motivated AND empowered AND willing to sacrifice. Everyone else is lambs to the slaughter. Is it any wonder that the giant corporations do nearly anything they want, and we do what they want us to do?
Your humblest servant,
Weasel Boy
This article fails to make a very important distinction between the consumer products that result from ideas and knowledge and the ideas and knowledge themselves. The idea of intellectual property in no way implies that the creator of mental products is exempt from competition. It only implies that he not be required to educate his potential competitors. The same is true of any craft. A master carpenter can train an apprentice in his art but is not required to do so. So although a would be competitor can examine the end product and imitate its features, he is not entitled to information about the process by which it is created.
Granted one of the nice things about the open source movement that is afoot is that we all can learn from superior programmers. However, I for one am more interested in the quality of the end product than in the process used to create it. If someone hords their own knowledge and manages to create a superior product then I'll choose on product merit, not philosophy.
This is simple capitalism. Knowledge is the basis of ideas and knowledge adds value to the professional person.
Way to call a spade a spade. I have never been able to wrap my mind around such backward thinking. I know that many of us go through a stage in our college years when we may believe that marxist ideas are good ones. Then most of us grow out of it and finally we become productive because we are MOTIVATED (financially) to do so.
(unless there is in an infrastructure IN PLACE to ensure the compensation of creators WHILE allowing freedom to copy)
Consider mathematics. Mathematics has been pressing forward consistently without restricting the copying of mathematical ideas. The creators, most often professors or grad students, are compensated, but not through the restriction of their ideas. There is some financial motivation (a good dissertation will get you a good position, for example) but the primary motivation is usually curiosity, with reputation as a secondary incentive.
If the world of mathematics were infiltrated with the philosophy of restricting the use of one's ideas, mathematics would stagnate. Mathematical progress is accelerated by the lack of restriction within the community, while the lack of strong restriction-oriented incentives does not seem to be a drawback.
So why does anyone pay mathematicians to sit around, think, and essentially give away their work? A strictly capitalist philosophy can't explain it well, but the benefits to the world are unquestionable. How much of your favorite technology would have been possible without the contributions that the mathematical community has made? We should keep that in mind before crediting the patent system of incentives for all of our technology.
Hmmm,
This is a very interesting article, It is interesting to see how people from a different era viewed these issues. I waiver in my own opinion. On one hand, I can see the value of Open ideas with no copyright or protection, but on the other, I see these problems. First, if one could not patent a process, it would be impossible to compete. Let us say that you invented a better wheel. You are an everyday joe, not much money to your name. Now, GoodYear comes along, finds out about your wheel, and then starts producing it, at great profit for themselves. What recourse do you now have. If there is no IP law to protect you, you have no recourse. IP law was designed in part to protect those with few resources from the infringement of those with large amounts of resource. A lack of IP law would actually favor the large corporations, not the average joe. If you can't protect your invention, there is no incentive to invent.
On the flip side of that coin what if INTEL or DEC could not patent parts of their design, how could they ever recover the millions, if not billions that were spent to develope their chips. If they couldn't, chances are that we would still be running on vacuum tubes, if even that. It works both ways. IP law is designed to protect the single inventor as well as the Multi Billion dollar corporation. It is not perfect, but it is an attempt to protect the motivation to invent.
Now, where I would agree with the article is in the area of software. I believe that software is only copyrightable, and not patentable. No one should be able to patent an algorithm. Would it not be absured if Shakespear had a patent on tragedy. You could view tragedy as an artistice algorithm. Certaintly, he should be able to protect his original works, but not the general idea behind them. Same for software. Microsoft should be able to copyright the software that enables Cascading Style sheets, but they should not be able to patent Cascading Style sheets themselves Anyway, that's my 2cents worth
Master Switch out
-Master Switch, one more element in the machine
But, the first time someone tries to TAKE something I have developed myself, WITHOUT my permission, that person will find themselves with a boot up their ass!
How can you TAKE an idea? To take means to remove something from one place and to put it in another place. If I were to TAKE your idea, then you would not have it. We're not talking about mind-wipes here!
There are a lot of issues involved here, many of which overlap to a large degree. So let me just focus on one of them for the moment: patents. If Alice invents something -- say, a knife blade that never needs sharpening -- and patents it in the USA, then the government guarantees her the right to exclusive use of this idea for a few years. This means that if Bob independently discovers the same thing, he is not allowed to use it until Alice's patent lapses -- unless he pays Alice whatever she demands for licensing rights, or unless the government decides that this idea is vital to the public (not likely in this case).
But now look at it from Bob's point of view. Bob probably discovered how to create this knife blade by reading scientific journals -- perhaps the same ones that Alice read. All of science is built upon the notion of community -- scientists and researchers continually build upon each other's work. It's also possible that Bob might have discovered this technique before Alice did -- if Alice can get her patent filed first, that's all that counts.
So who has lost here, and who gained? What's right and what's wrong? I'll leave those unanswered for now.
Should artists be forced to give away their paintings? No. Should authors have to give you a copy of their books? No. Should a farmer have to give you his produce? No.
This is where you fall into the trap. You're mixing everything together as though it were all the same, but it's not.
When an artist paints a painting, he has created at least two things: one is a physical object (a canvas with pigments on it), and the other is an abstraction (a work of art). These are completely separate things, and they're treated differently. Consider the canvas first -- nobody in their right mind would try to argue that it's acceptable to TAKE that physical object from the artist. That's called theft. But what about the work of art -- the particular combination of colors and textures and shapes which the artist created? You can't TAKE that, because it has no physical existence. You could make a copy of it, or you could make a painting which is similar to it by copying it and then modifying the copy. Doing so is neither wrong nor illegal -- you've not harmed the artist in any way. But you aren't allowed to distribute copies or modified copies of the painting until a number of years has passed -- this is called copyright.
Next you state that authors should not be forced to give you copies of their books. Again, this is based partly on copyright law. In this case, though, we have an extra factor involved -- copyright prevents others from making copies, but it does not dictate what the author may or may not do, or what she must do. The author is well within her rights not to publish her book at all. Of course she does not have to "give you a copy" of her book -- producing a copy for you would require an expenditure of time and resources on her part; but what's important here is that you aren't allowed to give away copies of her book.
Finally, you state that a farmer should not have to give away his produce. But this has absolutely nothing to do with the two previous examples! In this case, the farmer has worked to produce physical objects -- fruits, vegetables, meats and other things which have a finite and tangible existence. If he gives them to you, then he no longer has them. Your gain is equal to his loss. This is completely different from how patents or copyrights work.
These are all socialistic concepts. What's good for society as a whole is the rule, and if it hurts one person, so what.
Point one: simply because something is socialistic does not mean it is bad.
Point two: the basic tenet of Socialism is "From each according to his ability; to each according to his need." If you need something, then Socialism will not take it from you; rather, they will give it to you. Socialism isn't about hurting. (Of course, I'm talking about ideal Socialism, not the real world....)
Point three: this goes back to the trap. If someone admires your idea and decides to use it, you have not been hurt. This does not cause you any physical injury, nor does it restrict you in any way. Your rights have not been violated. Of course, this changes if someone else patents your idea -- because then you can't use it freely.
Capitalism is just fine by me. Free market enterprise and competetion [....]
... are exactly what we do not have. Patents are an artificial government interference into the free market. They restrict competition. When you receive a patent, the government has issued you the right to a time-limited monopoly.
[...] you'll always be able to pick up, say, a C++ book and learn how to beat the "evil, money-making corporations".
No, unfortunately, you cannot. If the EMMC in question has patented an algorithm -- say, using XOR to create a nondestructive cursor -- then you cannot use that in your program.
Let us say that you invented a better wheel. You are an everyday joe, not much money to your name. Now, GoodYear comes along, finds out about your wheel, and then starts producing it, at great profit for themselves. What recourse do you now have
Write a book about how you invented the wheel, or have a ghost writer do it for you. Sell millions of copies. Get on Oprah and Geraldo and become a celebrity -- "The (Wo)Man Who Invented the Wheel".
Some people here show no imagination whatsoever. Money this, money that. Profit, profit, profit. How about fame, glory and power? Love? Truth? Beauty?
Seems to me that software represents perfectly the hypothetical unlimited use concrete item
I can make unlimited copies of it and have taken absolutely nothing from the source. A theoretically unlimited number of people can use it concurrently in a (theoretically) unlimited number of places
The conclusion (if we accept the article's assumptions) is that it is absurd to consider software in any way, shape or form intellectual property, because the restrictions on "use" are completely artificial.
If you'll buy that for a quarter, consider this: The argument that IP helps promote progress in science and technology is a rather weak end-justifies-the-means sort of a thing. Allowing pharmaceutical companies to kidnap the homeless or welfare recipients to use in drug trials and experiments would no doubt advance medical technology, but we're not going to do that, are we?
Instead of extending copyright one year per year (on average), congress should continually reduce its duration and strength until a serious reduction in content creation and innovation is seen (the creativity and innovation made possibly by the reduction (when works go out of copyright/patents expire other authors/inventors can springboard off the older works) should be taken into account as well).
-- THIS SPACE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK -- --
Of course it is. I never argued against open source. I just have a problem with everyone who jumps on a soapbox and screams about how ALL s/w should be free (in all senses of the word).
/. article on P III Xeon demo for good example).
I also see a big discrepancy between someone who works in their spare time to write s/w, then asks people to pay for it and giants like M$ who downright force you to use their s/w and ONLY their s/w (see
Damn right! That's exactly what I'm saying. Why should I work my ass off to make a living when the federal government takes a percentage of that and gives it to the slobs who are too lazy to get a job?
I've got no problem with government subsidized disability compensation for those who are UNABLE to work. But people who would rather sit at home and leach off the government (and ultimately hard-working tax-payers) are another story.
All socialism does is to encourage everyone to aspire to the same level of mediocraty just to avoid being screwed by Da'Man.
Physical items are the products of abstractions (ie. thoughts). I doubt there are products that did not arise from the thoughts of a person/group (ok, ditch the obvious M$ jabs please).
If you go back and read my post, I never claimed that I should be allowed to patent an algorithm. I claimed that no one should force me to give away my source code, which is a unique collection of algorithms, coded in a precise way in which they become useful.
One other thing: socialism is an interesting idea. In practice, it fails miserably. Case in point: USSR.
First off... SCREW YOU! You don't know what was going on in my head when I wrote that message. If you did, get the F*** out of my brain.
Secondly, if I come up with a recipe for that, as you put it, super-duper banana creme pie, exactly WHY can't I restrict your use of it? Are you going to come to my kitchen and force me to write a copy of the recipe for you... NOT! If I have a bakery, and everyone loves the banana creme pie I bake, I can surely deny them the recipe, or at least sell it (hmm... reminded of an urban legend here).
With the mathematical idea, you are getting into tricky grounds. Most work along these lines is done either for a company or a university. When I started graduate school, I had to sign a form that the university would hold the patent for anything that I developed with the use of their equipment. While I may not agree with that, what am I to do? I use their equipment, they pay me to work, they get to own the patent. This doesn't preclude them paying me a portion of royalties (well, maybe it does, but I REALLY want the degree).
PS Don't tell me I DON'T THINK. That's about all I do every day (and a little coding).
Jerk
Give me a freaking break!!! If I spend my free time developing a product, or idea, that others want, I should damn well be able to charge them a compensatory fee. Similarly, if I am the philanthropic type who wants to give away my product/idea, that should also be my right. But, the first time someone tries to TAKE something I have developed myself, WITHOUT my permission, that person will find themselves with a boot up their ass!
You can probably tell that I have mixed feelings about the open source fanatics. Why should I be forced to give away not only the binaries for an application I develop, but also the source code? I thought one of the strongest motivations for all the Linux hackers out there is, if you can't find it, write it. Well, if you don't like having to pay a nominal fee for something someone else wrote, fine. Go write a similar app yourself. Don't hassle the guy who wants to make a buck off his work.
Should artists be forced to give away their paintings? No. Should authors have to give you a copy of their books? No. Should a farmer have to give you his produce? No. These are all socialistic concepts. What's good for society as a whole is the rule, and if it hurts one person, so what.
No thanks. Capitalism is just fine by me. Free market enterprise and competetion will keep prices reasonable (which is the argument against monopolization of an industry), so you'll always be able to pick up, say, a C++ book and learn how to beat the "evil, money-making corporations".
(Just so you know, I'm NOT a fan of Bill Gates/Microsloth)
Greed is NOT good. Greed is evil! While there is nothing wrong with wanting to create a useful product or provide a useful service by which both yourself and others may profit, greed in the sense of wanting to benefit yourself without regard for others is very, very, wrong.
When we say that man is motivated by Greed I think that either the definition of greed needs to be revamped, or you need to look at it a bit differently. We can say that greed is the desire to have everything we can lay our hands on, whether or not other people are harmed. But at the same time there is an emotional greed that must also be factored in. As a general rule, most people would like to have everything without denying others. We only hurt others if we can benifit from it. And as a second general rule most people would prefer to think of themselves as good. Our actions are determined by compromising between our greed for objects and our "greed" for emotional satisfaction. The problem lies in people who's greed is overbalanced on the side of possesions. A society based on purely helping others has no survival instinct and will crumble. A happy medium exists between helping others and helping yourself. Since it's obvious many people in this world are shallow and materialistic we need defined rules to enforce "goodness" onto everyone. (ie laws)
Greed does work, but only within a defined world regulated by fair regulations.
What this has to do with IP I've forgotten......
First of all, Ayn Rand is the only one who should listen to Ayn Rand. Anyone who has such a simplistic world-view has lost what separates man from animal.
On the subject of idea's as property....
To assert that invention only comes to fruition or is the child of promised riches is silly. The carrot in front of the carriage is a flawed and simplistic view. No promised amount of riches has enabled my brain to come up with anything patent-able or any invention. I have always created out of necessity, as have all inventors. If not out of a necessity to solve a problem, the necessity for my own mental well-being. For the same reasons an artist must paint, sing, act, write, etc.,etc.,... I must think, I must solve problems and I must do things. Sometimes I call it an art sometimes it is work.
People work because idleness leads to unbearable insanity and depression. Otherwise why would we ever do anything. (Remember, in an Ayn Rand world 'duty' doesn't exist) The argument that a corporation should monopolize ideas or else nothing would be invented is ludicrous at best!!! This thinking is nothing but a large stick wrapped in the packaging of 'principles of justice' that moneyed interests (the haves) use to subjugate the have-nots. If you don't believe you live in slavery you are either naïve or in denial. Corporations are not human, and do not have compassion. Corporate law is setup to shield humans involved in running and managing corporations from liability. If you don't believe that ask any lawyer the pros and cons between setting up various types of corporate entities. If you assert the 'justice' of one to accrue vast wealth while others starve and are subjugated then you have NO Justice and NO Humanity.
BTW, I believe genes cannot be patented simply because somewhere in the Old Testament God says the world is the domain of humanity, so isn't that the original GPL?? (Could I get clarification of at least a precise quote?)
Just my 2 cents and one large stick
Arrogance is Confidence which lacks integrity. -- me
Ownership of ideas is wrong for two reasons that I see. The second might also be a reason/way to "move away from the current system."
1) How many times have you had a good idea, independently, and later found out that someone else had already thought of it and patented it?
Such patents can discourage inventing, because what are the odds that something you have thought of has already happened?
2) Once an idea is thought of, and a monopolisitc patent for it created, the incentive to create something better / add value is decreased. You don't have to think of anything new since others will think of additions to your patent, and be forced to pay you royalties.
In most cases a 1 to 2 year patent would be enough to make alot of money, thereby encouraging ideas *and* encouraging value added ideas (the sole reason patent laws were created). The only time this falls apart is in the case of really long projects such as creation of new drugs, for which other measures can be taken.
You know those chemical cold packs? How about one in bandage form for burns?
But the infertility could knock out other beneficial genes in the same plant. What if the infertility is/becomes a recessive trait, and is adjacent to a very positive gene? Such could doom a species to extinction from a competitor, that it would otherwise be able to overcome because of the beneficial gene.
There are more ways to spread genes than sexually. The base tobacco mosaic virus has been altered to spread beneficial genes via man-made "blights". If the terminator gene was incorporated into a virus/bacteria, it could be spread to other species of plants en masse. Odds are that some specimens would survive, but other environmental factors could wipe out those few survivors.
What about those who come up with an idea independent of someone else, and miss out because we were too late to the patent office? That hardly encourages inventing; it encourages corporate sabotage, spying, legal disputes, etc....
17 or 20 years was good enough then, but with the increased speed of research and invention, as well as the ability to make "absurd" amounts of money compared to back then, it is too long. The system is indeed good, but, as the writers of the constitution thought, as times change so do some of the necessities of law. I seriously doubt anyone is going to want 75 year old code, as the modifications to that code in the interim 75 years will not be public domain. Very few are going to see a reason to modify a fictitious book from the original, such is not so with source code.
And why did some slave states stay with the north?
There's nothing wrong with what you want. Patent's aren't fun for the 3 other people who independently came up with an idea but missed the bus and were an hour late to the patent office. (Who was that other guy who supposedly invented the telephone?)
"but don't get down on people who want a
some monetary compensation for their efforts."
Hypocrit! No, not really, but what you said could be turned around and used against your position very easily.
The vast majority of nations have conquered other people/lands. There might be a fundamental right to property, but that doesn't mean that I cannot decide to conquer you and take away that property. Might makes right (at least in the official history books, and in the immediate now).
The mother is making a profit. A genetic one. She is ensuring that her genetic line will continue. That is extremely selfish. A truly selfless person wouldn't have children at all; she would instead help others raise their children. That would lead to the extinction of her selfless genetic code (unless she was helping relatives who shared it, as happens sometimes in nature), and her selfless tendecies would die out.
Most other forms of government since the dawn of civilization have incorporated capitalism, or a close approximation thereof. Capitalism isn't a form of government, it is a way of exchanging goods, services and ideas that has been around for along time.
Not as our economic systems have evolved, but as our level of technology has increased. Whether capitalism/patents/copyrights, etc... are the most efficient way to increase technology is a matter of considerable debate here.
Not quite. It was possible for a noble to fall all the way down (they got conquered) and for a peasant to climb the ladder (they conquered). Peasants could also climb the ladder via war, bounty, knightings, merchanting, good harvests, luck,etc.... Over a few generations these could add up to being very wealthy, or very noble, or, if you and your ancestors were lucky, both. Capitalism and democracy aren't the same. You seem to be trying to say that they are.
Aside: The greeks practiced slavery, and a form of welfare for the "gentry" (Socrates, though doing no work, still lived (albeit with aid from friends)). They also created profound scientific advances.
How many programmers get rich (ie billionaire-like) by programming? Most of the programmers just make a wage, sometimes stock options, while the charismatic ceo gets billions for marketing the company. Maybe it's just me, but I think programming should be on an equal monetary level as managing/marketing. (The ceo would still make more, because there are alot more programmers than ceo's presidents etc...)
The US was founded on these principles. Oh, it must be right, how could the writers and signatories of the constitution possibly be wrong? Just because I agree with some precepts of a body of ideas doesn't mean they are all correct. What happened years past does not dictate to me what is right now. The US was also founded partly upon the precept that slavery was ok.
Forceful takeovers of companies deny the full rightful compensation to the creators of the companies, but it is completely legal. What the legal system does and what it should do are to non-necessarily intersecting issues.
kOffice? Siag? possibly emacs & html? Weren't office *suites* a construct of MS to use their almost monopoly of wordprocessors to help other products that weren't doing as well?
You're mixing realities. The author's point is that the idea of individual ownership would never come up, or if it did, wouldn't be accepted by anyone else. Why would you want exclusivety? If you want to be the richest person in the world you could be, so could everyone else. Everyone would be equally rich because everything can be used by everyone. The chairmaker wouldn't need a saw, because a saw would already exist somewhere. Such a universe is hard to imagine because so many of it's axioms are alien to our own.
Agreed. It's also very difficult to discuss what would or wouldn't happen in certain situations, because there are too many variables. That seems to be what we slashdotters are doing though.
That was my point :-)
It's increasing from the sole point that there are more people with more free time today than at any time in the past. We've gone from inefficient cannons, matchlocks, balloons (that were around for many decades without much change) to orders of magnitude increases. Less than fifty years from heavier than air flight to jets, then to the sound barrier, then to space flight, then to the moon. Look at Moore's law (I hope that's the right one). Today's watch is much faster than yesterdays mainframe is much faster than eniac is much faster than Babbages machines. Hundreds of years passed between the inventino of the arquebus and cannons to the sufficiently more advanced gattling gun, to the hand-held machine guns of the early parts of this century.
Look at the development of my own field, biology. It has increased at a tremendous rate from that of the naturalists of the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries. As little while ago as the 16th century it was still possible for a person to become known as (if not raelly a) Master of All Trades (Descartes). Today it is practically impossible. It's incredibly difficult to be current with the current cutting edge of just biology.
The incorporation of the terminator gene can happen without human intervention. I seriously doubt there are many people out there who would do it themselves.
Aaahhh! Bad, bad introns! This is scary. Mutations (how many seeds are they going to sell? Mutations happen all the time, and some of them slip through.) All it would take are a couple of inopportune mutations to really mess things up, or to make a derivative of the seed that doesn't have the terminator gene!
I'm getting ridiculous, must be my interests showing through. This is ~ my 20th post or so just to this article.
It seems disingenuous of you to also claim what a god-given right to life would be. You are not god. How come you don't go around stoning adulterers? It says to do so in the bible. I agree with your last paragraph (being an ethical nihilist), but for a different point of view perhaps you might like to visit Secular Humanism.
An omnipotent god isn't a complete foundation for morals and ethics either. What gives that god the right to declare what is right or wrong? The ability to punish the transgressors? Like the state has the ability to punish the transgressors of its laws? What gives a god to declare absolute right and wrong? Absolute compared to what? The whole premise falls apart if you look at it even remotely hard.
I discuss this point with another person at http://home.earthlink.net/~mlbakke 1/r_rel63a.htm about 1/3 down the page.
I don't agree with your points, but are differences are fundamental enough that I don't see how they can be overcome short of ignoring them :-).
Many of the cracked binaries out there have taken a tremendous amount of effort and skill to crack. Given not as much as designing the original thing (with the exception of encryption algorithms). Don't those crackers deserve something for their labor?
I had to look up epistemology, it's been too long since I've used the word. Yeah, I'm a complete nihilist (in the nothing sense of the word), though that leads to paradoxes too! Our fundamental precepts (I don't always think nihilistically) are different enough that it is difficult for us to meet a common ground on this issue (or so it appears).
In my other reply, the first are == our.
1. Patents can be bought and sold (whether you call them property or not). This does not alter the argument of the post you replied to. And on the topic of property, your house, your furnace, the food you eat, and the water you drink are all property. Millions die yearly for lack of these; opposition to the abstract notion of intellectual property strikes me as facetious and hypocritical unless you oppose the notion of property in its entirety, in which case you would sell all that you have and give it to the poor.
2. Yup, I agree with you. I would like to see software patents for one year, and copyrights for two. Shorter timeframes might be better. This would force innovation in the software sector - you either release a better product, or some guy with a CD burner who doesn't have to amortize development costs starts selling for half of what you can aford to.
IP laws should not be abolished, they should be remedied.
3. I think this was the point of the post you replied to.
4. The notion of God being a committee is fundamental to much Christian doctrine; read up on "the trinity" or "the triune nature of God".
Look closely at the Slashdot Economic Model. They get paid (marginally, maybe, but paid nonetheless) by advertisers because of their viewers, yet realistically they create no content (no offense, guys). Yes, their equipment has costs, and one can argue that they sell advertisements, but that's solely a matter of perspective, and an inaccurate one.
Billboard owners sell advertisements. They have nothing else to offer. They own eyeballs because of their physical presence, but it's no different than paying some guy to walk around with a sandwich board on his back.
The "New Economy" doesn't care about IP. The new economy is Seinfeld. You could rip off his jokes, even steal his script, run a different cast on an alternate network, and who would have watched? Economics is about getting what you want, and IP is about protecting mediocre product.
A good idea, like a good product, sells itself, and needs no protection. Try buying a Rolex from the corner junkie, or a BMW knock-off and you'll see what I mean.
Or better, try both pine and mutt, and pick one. It doesn't matter which. You'll prefer one, and though they share the same ideas (and probably some code), had they not been free you still would have had a preference. That preference is what has value, not the product.
The product is nearly irrelevant...
I hate it when people don't think before they speak...
Give me a freaking break!!! If I spend my free time developing a product, or idea, that others want, I should damn well be able to charge them a compensatory fee. Similarly, if I am the philanthropic type who wants to give away my product/idea, that should also be my right. But, the first time someone tries to TAKE something I have developed myself, WITHOUT my permission, that person will find themselves with a boot up their ass!
OK, so you spend months developing that PERFECT recipe for the super-duper banana cream pie, and then you can restrict others from using it... NOT!
Or, you spend months coming up with this new mathematical formula, and then you can restrict others' use of it... NOT! (again)
Should artists be forced to give away their paintings? No. Should authors have to give you a copy of their books? No. Should a farmer have to give you his produce? No. These are all socialistic concepts. What's good for society as a whole is the rule, and if it hurts one person, so what.
the 'copyleft' idea would be for artists not to give out their paintings, but to allow others to make unlimited number of copies; similarly, an author would not give out books, but perhaps allow others unlimited access to the typeset or plaintext version of the book (electronically). Lastly, with farmer, there is no similarity at all. When a farmer gives out their crop, they can no longer use it -- material property is that way. if you give out source, YOUR copy of the source is still usable to you.
Some people just DON'T THINK. Sheesh!
(Just so you know, I'm NOT a fan of Bill Gates/Microsloth)
No, just a fan of the ridiculous (and illogical) property scheme that allows them to prosper.
--
--
Victor Danilchenko
I really hope this is not what the entire /. community thinks like. I always thought people shared thier ideas because they WANTED to not because they HAD to. There is a difference between VOLUNTARILY sharing ideas and being FORCED to share ideas. What a person thinks is his own, and no one elses.
You are missing the point. Nobody makes you share your ideas (except fot Apple and their ASPL license); the whole point here is that, once you tell that idea to someone, you cannot make them not share it with anyone. Get the difference?.. You can keep your idea private, but you cannot impose restrictions on others' use of the same idea -- that's the whole anti-IP point.
--
--
Victor Danilchenko
Copyright protects an expression of ideas. It doesn't protect the ideas themselves. Why do you think it's perfectly legitimate for you to quote from a book without paying the author? Why do you think it's perfectly all right for you to appropriate the ideas expressed in a book as your own? Because copyright doesn't protect ideas. It protects expression: written words.
'Written words' are ideas, just of a more specific kind. All information is just 'ideas' of one sort or another. if you really think about it, there is no qualitive distinction between an abstract idea of a tragedy, a more specific ourline of a tragic love story between two hormone-crazed teenagers, a still more specific story of 'Romeo' and 'Juliet', a detailed scetch of that drama, and finally the specific text. All of these things differe from each other only in the amount of detail.
Copyright is legitimate. Patents are different because they restrict the use of ideas -- and I fully agree that this is silly. But copyright is a different story. Someone somewhere invested their energy in producing a tangible thing: their book/code/whatever. It is theirs, and they have a right to do with their property what they wish.
Do you think that it takes any less time to, say, invent a volfram-thread (sp?) light bulb (a perfectly patentable idea)?..
Finally, let me say that the premise of the article is incorrect. Private property is legitimate because God owns everything, and he extends to us the right to own things as stewards -- as his representatives. There is nothing whatever immoral about the idea of private property; people may do bad things with their stuff, but that's a separate question.
Now THIS is one of the most laughable explanations of the nature of property I have ever heard. Setting aside the very question of god's existence, let me ask you this -- how do you know that god gave you the right to that car? When have you last spoken with her? Well, I have spoken with god today, and she told me that she decided to now grant the 'stewardship' of that car to me. Fork it over, buddy!
--
--
Victor Danilchenko
(I think my first answer got lost due to me forgetting to click 'submit')
If people are allowed to freely copy paintings, music, software, etc. this has the potential to erode the economic incentive of artists to produce the works in the first place. This means fewer works, and this means a less successful economy, which is bad for society.
A substantial body of psychological research has shown that people involved in creative tasks (such as ones that produce in what currently falls under the abel of 'IP') actually do a much better job when offered non-material compensation -- lova, pride, respect, satisfaction, etc. -- rather than material ones like money. The obvious conclusion then is to set up a system which would allow such people to do what they do, but not to offer them this money as reward, instead offering them the intrinsic incentives.
Such a system already exists -- education research facilities work this way. Most inventions (as opposed to 'innovations' in the Gatesque sense) come out of such facilities.
BTW, you say that elimination of IP has a potential to erode our economy. My computer has a potential to spontaneously combust right now, yet it does not... Until someone can offer support for this erosion having a reasonably high chance of occuring, the above point has little, if any, value in this kind of argument.
--
--
Victor Danilchenko
But the time I have spent creating that source is gone, lost to me. Those minutes, hours, days and weeks spent designing, debugging, and coding the final item are the cost of that item - not the few cents needed to make a printed or electronic copy.
That time is gone no matter what you do -- restricting (or not restricting) others' access to the fruit of your labor will neither return that time to you, nor require more time and effort from you. However, once that time is spent, the benefit others can derive from it is great to them yet cost-free to you. Kinda like RMS's infamous infinite sandwich...
--
--
Victor Danilchenko
So researchers at Universities don't get paid in money? Hmmm, that's news to me.
Read what I wrote. They don't get money as a reward for their discoveries -- they get money in order to enable them to work. Of course, if they do good job, they are more likely to be given grants in the future, but the difference between this and industry research model is still the same, and just as cruicial: they get paid to work, not for work. They get paid for the services they provide (applying their minds to problems), not for the things their effort produces.
I am not suggesting it as a valid model for the whole economy, only for the sectors involved in producing ideas, technologies, arts, etc. -- stuff currently covered by IP laws.
--
--
Victor Danilchenko
The notion of property is based on the idea that you can prevent others from doing certain things. Either you claim that there can be no property on information at all (and what about your medical records?), or I as the owner can impose any conditions in the contract. If you don't like the contract, don't sign it!
You don't own your medical records, the access to them is restricted for other reasons (privacy, non-discrimination, etc.). As far as I am concerned, you can sell me (under contract) some data in the same way that you can sell me (under contract) the Brooklyn bridge -- which is to say, you can't, because you don't own either.
--
--
Victor Danilchenko
And if I can't sell you some data under contract because I don't own it, then why should I give it to you? Let's say I wrote a piece of useful software. You are saying I don't own it. If so and providided I am not motivated by reputation considerations, well-being of mankind, etc. why in the world should I tell anybody I wrote it? If it is not my property, then I don't have control over it, and if I want control, I will attempt to hide it. What's my motivation to give information to you if I can't do it under contract?
First of all, if you wrote it for the purpose of making money, it probably would not be very good -- that's the whole point of all that psych research I mentioned.
Secondly -- no, you would not have motivation to give it away. You would not have had motivation to write it, either -- you would only have written it if you were motivated by something other than money (according to your own example).
The short of it is -- what if 2+2=5?.. I don't know, and it isn't, so I frankly don't particularly care, either. All I see is that, had IP been abolished, we probably would see less art/software/invention, but more GOOD art/software/invention.
--
--
Victor Danilchenko
So, either you find a way of paying the programmers for their efforts, or else most of your code just doesn't get written.
This has been done to death. Programmers of course also have to eat, but:
1) programmers can be paid to program (which they usually are anyway), rather than for programs -- paid for the services they render, not code they create. The payers, of course, would be those interested in having code that does certain stuff, not the least of them being the government (a-la NSA research grants).
2) They can change money for services related to the code, not for code itself.
Fundamentally, these are answers to the ethical problem concerning ownership of information. The problem does exist, and simply ignoring it (and treating information no differently from other forms of property) is not an answer.
--
--
Victor Danilchenko
If an application is valuable to a large, disorganized user base, OTOH, then there is nobody among the users who can hire developers on behalf of all of them. What happens in this scenario?
If an application is valuable to 'the people', then let 'the people' form cooperatives to fund it. Well, such cooperatives have been formed -- the governments (which are supposed to represent 'the people'). This is at least how they are SUPPOSED to work.
And these are my rebuttals to those answers. I have nothing against Open Source and Free Software existing - but unless you can demonstrate a workable system that employs the same number of programmers as the present one for the same wages, I'm not going to abandon the proprietary model completely. I *do* need to eat.
You did not offer a rebuttal. At most, you have shown that there is an easy 'crutch' for the real problem; you did nothing to show that IP is not problemmatic. This would be a rebuttal -- showing that the original point is false.
This is no different from american 'affirmative action' or gay anti-discrimination laws -- they may be needed under the current circumstances, but they do not address the REAL problem, which is social inequality and prejudice. Those laws, just like current copyright and patent system, are crutches -- they treat the syptoms rather than the cause. I do not have a perfect economic model for IP-free world at hand, although FSF has come up with some pretty good stuff. Yes, there probably would be fewer programmers -- although not much fewer, because as I understand, most programmers are involved in developing internal software and providing services anyway, which things are basically not subject to the problems you mentioned.
--
--
Victor Danilchenko
While we rail against patents especially software
patents, we are (usually) expressing distaste for the way patents have been used by LARGE corporations to coerce small individual inventors.
We should remember that patents provide protection to the small inventor from the LARGE corporation and without this LARGE corporations would be able to steal ideas form small inventors - far more than they do.
It often happens that a software developer wants to license their technology to a large company.
When they show the software or the idea during the licensing talks, the LARGE corporation says - that's neat but we can do that in a month.
And sure enough, the next month they have a product - without licensing the software.
Software patents *properly used* could reduce this
phenomenon significantly, IMHO.
Properly used, software patents allow individual inventors to make a living writing software with protection. All software developers may not be interetsed in making money via services - some do and that's great. But eliminating software patent protection makes it that much harder for an individual developer who wants to make a living
by invention.
You can argue against the way patents have been granted - and that's a viable argument but that is a problem with funding in the Patent Office and not a problem with the patent system.
Let patents fufill their protective role and stop focusing only on the coercive role they have played when owned by LARGE corporations.
Nitin
------
The more idiot-proof you make it the smarter the idiots get.
Let's not put the nail in the coffin.
Greg W. wrote:
"But what about the work of art -- the particular combination of colors and textures and shapes which the artist created? You can't TAKE that, because it has no physical existence. You could make a copy of it, or you could make a painting which is similar to it by copying it and then modifying the copy. Doing so is neither wrong nor illegal -- you've not harmed the artist in any way. But you aren't allowed to distribute copies or modified copies of the painting until a number of years has passed -- this is called copyright."
If an artist paints a picture and then you copy the picture, you have harmed the artist. The reason that copyright law prevents YOU from copying the work (whether you distribute it or not. you got that wrong, buddy) is because that artist has the right to sell or not sell (or distribute freely for that matter) that painting, any copies of it, and any modifications of it. If he didn't, no one would buy his work, they would just copy it. He starves, but hey, his work is famous because it's everywhere! Big deal! Fame isn't going to feed him!
Artists and musicians have a need for this kind of protection. Their work is abstract in nature. Someone with the same amount of talent can create the same kind or style of work, but to directly take their work and use it or distribute it as your own is wrong, and ultimately hurts them. If there is a question of whether or not there is a copyright infringement, let the courts decide. But let's not take away their ability to make a living from their creations.
If you want to give away something that you have created, fine. I'll give it the once over and see if it's worth using, and I might even give something of my own away too. But the second you try to take away my right to make money off of my own creations, whether physical or abstract, then I'll give your creation back to you and take my ball and go home. I'm not playing anymore.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
I run BeOS. The rules don't apply.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
I run BeOS. The rules don't apply.
We're all individuals.
I'm not!
Sorry. Couldn't resist.Okay, I got Linux installed. So where's the free beer everyone keeps talking about??
Honestly, I think its a matter of semantics. To me, a "material good" implies its a physical object that can't be in two places at the same time. Clearly, software, information, and ideas dont belong in this category. Someday, if we ever get matter compilers (ala Diamond Age) all of this era's niggling over copying information will look like a schoolyard fistfight.
But, thats not why I'm here. Here's a piece whos info im not completely sure of, but is a good story nonetheless.
Turns out the patent office did something unexpectedly good once:
They saved lives by issuing Colt a patent for the original single action revolver in 1836.
How is that possible, you ask?
Well, apparently, at the time of the patent there were several other pistol designers working on designs for a multishot, cartridge based pistol. Colt beat all of them to the punch with their wildly sucessful single-action revolver, and promptly patented it.
The basic revolver design was a good one, and all the other designers recognized it immediately. However, it was not without problems. It would jam. The chamber would get misaligned with the barrel. The barrel needed constant cleaning. The barrel would get hot, and further mess things up. Several different inventors came up with several modifications to the existing design, but since they were all basically revolvers, they fell under Colt's patent. They were are superb examples of engineering innovation, and yet they could
not be sold, because they were all basically revolvers.
Colt by now had a virtual monopoly on revolvers, since nobody else could make them, and any dolt would recognize that single-shot pistols were no match for Colt's design. However, the patent meant that no better revolver would emerge for 20 years! (the life of the patent). Thank god. For 20 years people were forced to use Colt's original design, sans improvements, since Colt had absolutely no incentive to fix the problems with their original revolver.
Thank you patent office for yet another success story.
Of course, you never hear this in the history books, and everybody knows that the patent office encourages innovation, right?
his viewpoint that IP is a bad idea is a complete crock. IP provides a POWERFUL incentive to create. Go to Amazon.com and look at their variety. How much of that would exist without royalties to the hardworking authors? 0.01%.
Once again, don't confuse IP from copyrights. I am willing to concede copyrights as a method to ACKNOWLEDGE the authorship of a certain product, and to prevent co-opting the product itself for commercial profit.
On top of that, there are other ways to make money in an information economy that are not from government enforced handouts. Tech support. Service. Paid code development for a specific MATERIAL product. Distribution. Marketing. The list goes on and on. On top of that, there are huge advantages to the free flow of ideas that far outweigh these knee-jerk "I'm afraid of the dark" phobias about your welfare source drying up. As the world economy moves away from material goods and towards an information based economy (read: development costs -> 100%, distribution costs -> 0%), those of you who cannot find other ways to make money and instead decide leech off of the fruits of government-enforced monopolies will eventually be doomed.
Look at the Open Source movement - how much of that would exist without Copyright laws? Zilch. Open Source depends on authors being sure their code won't be commercially coopted - enforced by Copyright Laws?
The copyleft protects GPL'd code from copyrights and shrink-wrap, binary licences, not the other way around. It is these same moronic licensing restrictions which allow commercial interests to
1) Hijack the code
2) Resell it to you for whatever they want
But most importantly
3) Prevent others from selling it to you for less, or gasp, even worse, for free.
This is competition? I think not. This is at best government enforced monopoly, and at worst an outright handout. If #2 and #3 don't scream monopoly to you I don't know how to reach you.
What Pharmaceutical company is going to invest the $1 billion needed to bring a nw drug to market if they know withing weeks it will be mass produced and imported back into the US by a third world low cost producer?
Most good (read: well respected) pharmaceutical companies immediately release valuable medical data to the community. This is how science works and progresses. If your hypothetical company came up with a cure for cancer, and the cure itself could be mass produced for pennies, are you saying it is moral for said pharmaceutical company to hold the world hostage and demand royalty payments at their whim? Keep in mind, I am not even talking about a FAIR royalty payment. How does $1 billion per pill sound? Remeber, they can charge whatever they want, because nobody else can legally make it. That doesn't sound like progress to me either.
The modern era makes copying easy, and the value of the physical implementation of 'software' in the broadest sense nearly zero. How are we going to be sure that the best and brightest amoung us are encouraged to make use of their talents if not by IP????
Rest assured the best and the brightest will always use their talents. The only question is: do they have a standard of living that allows them to persue their goals? Is there enough of an economy left without IP to support them? I, for one, think so. If you can't think of ways to make a living w/o IP you aren't thinking hard enough.
If in the hypothetical utopian future, EVERYTHING is a form of information, and all "products" dont have this scarcity problem, will you still maintain we need to artificially enforce some arbitrary hack to make them LOOK like they are scarce? To what end, exactly?
Man, that was unreadable!
Creation of ideas usually requires substantial
amounts of material property, not to mention food.
You at least need something to guarantee the
inventor will be able to get a return on
investment. That's where intellectual property
can be beneficial and should be used.
Dear Editor (Rob Malda), I really think you
shouldn't have let that one go through.
Please add a weekly poll for lamest slashdot
article.
Hi SimonK,
On an international forum mainly crowded with
readers having a scientific/technological
background I guess it's best to speak their
language.
Anyhow, I'm sure most slashdotters are more
than half literate. Are you of the condescending kind?
I think you have made a pertinent extension of the IP debate in this forum. It is interesting how companies like Monsanto build their business on technologies developed at public cost ( note all the government funding of fundamental molecular biology ) and then insist on exclusive monopolistic practices for their extensions. If their acquisitive logic were fairly extended they would be paying royalties to many people and institutions - or more likely the whole scientific enterprise would have collapsed under the weight of lawyers.
It gets even more worrying when you consider that these companies produce the herbicides, pesticides and fertilizers and are very busy buying up rare seed stocks.
Yes, government is better. We have some democratic control over it.
Didn't Tucker have some ideas about how it was the system of currency that was the problem? If I remember correctly he thought that the proper value of any article should be determined not by a market, but by how long it took to produce it, with some weighting factors for skill. There were communities established somewhere in the states that traded in "time notes" at Time Stores and I think some of them may have lasted several years. Yet another of the US's many socialists!!
> communist anarchism (Marxism);
This is a serious misinterpretation. Communist anarchists cannot be described as Marxists except by the wildest bending of definitions. Even before the First International there was considerable disagreement between communist anarchists and Marxists. This was a fundamental difference over the role of authority which has been played out ever since through the Russian and Spanish revolutions and their aftermaths.
This post, like many of the other posts on this topic seem (to me) to miss an important point. Specifically, they all start by assuming that there is an inherent right to intellectual property. They then argue that the framers of the Constitution were correct to preserve this human right for us. This is like assuming the existence of God to prove that God is a benevolent god.
The point (and I suppose that I may misunderstand it) of the original poster is that there is no such thing as intellectual property. This is because "ideas" or expressions of those ideas can be copied without real damage to the originator of the idea. (despite the fiction perpetrated by the record companies and IP lawyers). As RMS points out, the patent monopoly is granted to inventors in order to encourage invention for the good of society, not for the good of the inventor.
When tomjanofsky (and many others) say that "people are more likely to create inventions if afforded protections for their intellectual property rights" (paraphrasing, my apologies) they are assuming that the inventors have intellectual property rights to be protected. This assumption is not justified. They are granted, by society, a privilege. The rights that they do have include the right to chose whether or not to share their invention.
An additional argument against the notion of IP "rights" is the fact that patents expire. If one has the "right" to control how people use one's idea, how can the government take that right away. Rights are an inherent part of being human. They are not for the government to grant or take away. The Bill Of Rights (for example) does not grant rights to citizens. What it does is specify a (non-exclusive) list of rights that people already possess and prohibits the government from infringing on those rights.
By way of disclaimer, I have yet to copyleft anything worthy of the GPL.
Hmm, that's an interesting position. Correct me if I'm wrong, but you're basically saying that a person is free to share or not share any idea they have, but once they share it, they can't have any say in what other people do with it. This is philosophically clean and simple - if you don't want other people to use your ideas, keep your big mouth shut.
In practice, this makes me a bit wary. It's obvious (to me) that it would be bad if someone took a book someone else wrote, and put their name on it (which is a very basic, and simple case of 'intellectual property'.) And the same with software, really - If I could start selling Kirbysoft Word, which was just MS Word with a few name changes, that seems slimy and underhanded. While it may be easy to say that, based on certain philosophies we have no inherent moral claim to ideas, this becomes difficult to implement. Part of this is that our society is based around the whole concept that we can own what we create and do with it what we see fit - and part of it is that there is some rational motivations to that.
I tend to think more along the lines of O'Reilly than RMS - we should free ideas such as software if freeing the idea works better. Open Source software does amazing things, and clearly has some strong practical justifications - it's not purely a strange little moral phenomena.
There's nothing wrong at all with doing something out of a motivation other than making money. However, and this is my point, open source software is not a phenomena that is newsworthy because it's creating morally pure software. It's a phenomna, it's popular, because it creates _good_ software, software that can compete in quality (and often surpass) commercial software. Much of the open source community is distracted by ideas such as these, and enters into the Holy Cause against commercial software. This may be a mistake - people who are curious tend to be scared off by such zealots, particularly if they're grounded in the traditional commercial mindset. The way to evangelize open source is as a practical way to make better software, not as a natural conclusion of philsophies of scarcity and reproducibility. And, believe me, for every philosopher you can quote that supports this idea, there's another equally respected one who can be quoted against it (such as John Locke, and his idea of the input of labor (ie, programming) creating ownership.)
-- Kate
This is very true. If you are a "little fish", patenting an idea is as good as giving it away, because a patent is only as strong as your ability to defend it.
Here's a thought, and I wonder if it's been discussed enough:
The Free Software philosophy needs to appeal to programmers if it is to succeed (since it is programmers who must produce GPL'ed software with enough functionality to compete with commercial offerings)... but programmers often end up having an economic stake in the continuation of the present Intellectual Property regime, because their wages are paid by corporations who depend on restrictive licenses to create (artificial?) scarcity.
I recognize that the FSF describes other ways for programmers to make a living, but to someone "dependent" on the corporate life, there's too much uncertainty involved in these alternatives. (On the other hand, the FSF could probably draw lots of recruits from programmers who're laid off because their company went bust...)
I guess I didn't have much of a point, other than that a lot of the emotional resistance to RMS's ideas (including, possibly, my own) may be simple fear for our salaries.
--
Do I look like I speak for my employer?
Seventy-third post!
--
Do I look like I speak for my employer?
Why do we have the GIMP but no GPL'ed office suite?
This isn't a rhetorical question, I'm curious.
--
Do I look like I speak for my employer?
blah blah blah biological warfare, and no private entity should be allowed to do that. blah blah blah
No private entity? How about, no entity, period? No one, not even the government, should consider it within their rights to fuck with genetics for the purpose of bio-warfare.
True. There is nothing wrong with a programmer aspiring to make money from his/her craft. I don't even begrudge Microsoft for charging exorbitant amounts of money for their products, because I think it's the public's fault for paying far too much for a 'fad'. Everyone is internet this, or dotcom that...
:)
That doesn't mean that microsoft did everything ethically, and they should be made to pay for their crimes.
What we do need is a more efficient e-commerce system, so that you can pay the author a dollar to download a program, without the overhead eating up that dollar. I would pay a dollar sendmail, if I thought the author deserves it.
However, charging a dollar to my VISA card is simply not practical.
Plus, let's also not forget that a lot of people would like the *recognition* of their work, and not necessarily the profit. If we set up an institution where free software is archived and the author's name permanently attached to their work... wait a second...
kmj
kmj
The only reason I keep my ms-dos partition is so I can mount it like the b*tch it is.
It seems that Canada's socialist government is doing fine. We have one of the best health care systems in the world. Socialism does not "encourage everyone to aspire to the same level of mediocraty [sic]", it allows everyone, yes, even the *poor* to have the same chance as the wealthy to prosper.
The original purpose of copywrite law is to give the private sector a reason to do research (never mind 'pure' research). It is assumed that being the first on the scene does not give them enough market advantage to make it worthwhile to invent. Although people can and constantly do develop intellectual (as opposed to material) products without any hope of financial gain, it was assumed that giving them a chance to make a living off their inventions would result in faster progress.
Luckily there are alternatives, such as the new Copyleft License which causes intellectual property rights to dissipate after two years (by which time any software'll probably be obsolete). Even when looking at the Open Source movement one must keep in mind that there are non-financial rewards -- after all, who wouldn't want to be a 'benevolent dictator' at least some of the time? The sad truth is that humans don't even like thinking for free, and in order to keep them thinking we have to keep paying them.
The guy can neither write, nor think clearly. I advise him to read any good legal philosophy book on property. This whole essay is gross oversimplification. Just two issues that came to my mind immediately:
Let's say that a physical object is usable by everybody simultaneously in all places, etc. I just made a ring for my wife. I do NOT want anybody else to use it. Is it my property? (privacy / uniqueness issues)
I am a very good chairmaker. I made an excellent chair for myself and everybody else can/does use it simultaneously with me. A guy comes to me and says that his butt is differently shaped and he wants a different chair, but he is not a chairmaker. How can he persuade me to make a chair for him? (stimulus issues)
Yeah, now I know what this issue reminded me of: classic XIX century socialist/marxist writings: Property is theft!
Kaa
Kaa's Law: In any sufficiently large group of people most are idiots.
As to the ring example falling under the copyright -- the author makes a much stronger point. The author claims that if it were possible to use a physical object simultaneously by everybody everywhere, there would be no concept of property. This is way more fundamental than the expression vs. idea distinction made in copyright.
And the example does NOT depend on the concept of ownership. Change 'my wife' to 'a girl I like'. Nothing changes. Liking somebody does not imply ownership. However I, being an individual person, would like a choice of exclusivity in some matters.
As to the chairmaker, once you make a better saw for him, we are off to a barter economy and the concept of property rears its lovely head. If we are exchanging a chair for a saw, what rights do I have to what I am exchanging? And I will not even talk about the inherent free rider problem...
Kaa
Kaa's Law: In any sufficiently large group of people most are idiots.
Well, let's see. So if anybody shared information with you, he should not force you not to share it or copy it. Well, isn't it his choice? Free adults can (or should be able to) make any contracts they want. I wrote the software, I am willing to sell/share it with you, but I want to be able to negotiate my contract with you about that. As part of that contract I would like to impose obligations upon you, similar to current copyright law. Can I do this? Sure I can, unless you want to limit my liberty of entering into any contracts I want. Is it amoral on my part? I don't see why, it's a matter of my own choice.
The notion of property is based on the idea that you can prevent others from doing certain things. Either you claim that there can be no property on information at all (and what about your medical records?), or I as the owner can impose any conditions in the contract. If you don't like the contract, don't sign it!
The issue of what is socially desirable and the proper public policy is, of course, a completely different discussion.
Kaa
Kaa's Law: In any sufficiently large group of people most are idiots.
I know I don't own my medical records (unfortunately). The doctor/hospital/HMO/whatever owns them. The point is that they are still owned.
And if I can't sell you some data under contract because I don't own it, then why should I give it to you? Let's say I wrote a piece of useful software. You are saying I don't own it. If so and providided I am not motivated by reputation considerations, well-being of mankind, etc. why in the world should I tell anybody I wrote it? If it is not my property, then I don't have control over it, and if I want control, I will attempt to hide it. What's my motivation to give information to you if I can't do it under contract?
Kaa
Kaa's Law: In any sufficiently large group of people most are idiots.
I understand, and yes if someone shares and *idea* with someone else then yes the *idea* is free to all. But *any* realization of that idea (be it a book, software, etc...) is the property of the creator, and can be resticted and he sees fit. He can not be forced to allow his work be freely copied. Unless of course he wants it to be free.
You can lend someone the book, software, etc... there by sharing the idea. But copying the book, software, etc... and either selling it or giving it away is taking away from the creator of the book, software, etc...
The idea is free, but not the work.
I don't even know where to start.
/. community thinks like. I always thought people shared thier ideas because they WANTED to not because they HAD to. There is a difference between VOLUNTARILY sharing ideas and being FORCED to share ideas. What a person thinks is his own, and no one elses.
I really hope this is not what the entire
I am all for Linux and the GPL, but I am also all for someone charging for their work. If you created it then name your price, if I want it then I'll pay.
And yes if you detect a little of Rand in my reply then you are correct.
If this is intended to be a critique of intellectual property, it is severely misaimed. While this is an interesting piece, it is really only making the case for how things already are.
/. seem to have a misaimed hatred for intellectual property. There is a big difference between the notion of intellectual property - and how particular IP laws are currently implemented. The GPL requires and supports the notion of intellectual property as much as any traditional copyright does - it's key difference lies only in how it views the distribution of the creators rights that come along with that intellectual property. Free software requires the notion of intellectual property.
The article is appropriately titled though, "Why ideas should not be property" - while "ideas" themselves are not considered property under current intellectual property laws.
IP laws such as copyright and patent do not attempt to reserve the "idea" to the creator, rather they reserve the right for the creator to have certain controls over physical manifestations of that idea (in the case of copyright, read duplication, distribution, derivative works) for some time period. IP applies only to the expression of an idea, not to the idea itself, or any facts underlying that idea.
We have intellectual property for reasons that are both related to the notion that someone has a certain ownership of something they create (philosophically this has a number of bases - including, but not exclusively Locke) as well as for utilitarian purposes (the US Constitution gives the Congress the right to make IP laws to "further the progress of the arts and sciences"). That is, the people who agreed upon those laws felt that for any number of reasons, including but not limited to profit - people would be more inclined to create intellectual property if there were protections provided for their rights.
IP laws do not attempt to control the flow of ideas - any law that tried to do such a thing would be foolish - but they do reserve rights concerning the manifestations of those ideas to the creators.
People here on
There's only one problem:
The farmers who bought that seed signed a contract with Monstanto agreeing not to save any seed corn. They did this for the economic advantage of not having to worry about where they spray their noxious chemicals around. The fact that they'd like to break that contract should earn them no sympathy from anyone. If they had refrused en masse to sign that contract, Monsanto would have had to find another way to sell that seed.
---Joe Merlino gnupg public key ID: 1E91EBAF
You might note that those of us who didn't flame the grammar may well have picked up on that fact. Since there were about four people who flamed the diction, and umpty bajillion people who did NOT flame the diction, you may safely conclude that we are not all morons.
Or you could conclude that we ARE all morons, but you'd be wrong. That is certainly your prerogative.
Why yes, I AM a rocket scientist!
Well there seems to be all this discussion of what can be better. That this system, or that system is the Way Things Should Be. I propose an experiment. The readers of Slashdot are members of an intellectual semi-elite, and we should be able to move through this logically.
So let us devise a socialogical system which would stem solely from the initial premise of the basic right of Intellectual Property. In another thread let's examine what would happen if Intellectual Property was a fundamental untruth, and that ideas are shared completely freely, as a basic assumption.
To put this more succinctly:
In universe 1, try to imagine a society who have the same basic makeup as us, except that IP is a fundamental truth/right.
In universe 2, try to imagine a society who have the same basic makeup as us, except that freedom of ideas is a universal truth/freedom/right.
Let's try to disconnect the discussion from the current political world we live in and instead try to generate logical consequences for how these societies would develop.
Just a suggestion for an interesting thought experiment.
--------------- "Well HELLO MR FANCY PANTS! I've got news for you bub, you ain't leadin' but two things, Jack, and
The thing here isn't investments, it isn't return of capital put into something.
The idea is this: If you have a brilliant idea, that you happened to think of over breakfast this morning, the likelyhood is very high, given enough time, that the idea isn't that new or revolutionary, and that someone might even OWN the right to it. So, say, if this is something you think could be immensly helpful in your work or whatever, you are not allowed to use it, because someone OWNS the right to this idea ?? Doesn't that sound weird to you ?
>``It takes hundreds of slaves to pick all the
>cotton and process it from a medium-sized >field.''
>Denying a fundamental liberty because it makes a
>certain business avenue possible is wrong. >Monsanto will have to find a new profit avenue.
This is exactly the argument against legislation of MP3s. The business model record companies use has become outmoded, and they want to curtail our artist's and our artist's fans freedoms.
They have every right to make a profit. They do not have the right to stop others from profiting, and they do not have the right to cut our rights.
Capitalism has always been about evolution. Competion and Diversity are the key words to the thing. What is happening, in fact, is an attempt to legislate Competition and Diversity out of our economy. We all know this is bad for consumers, who don't get continual improvements to products, and for producers, when the economy ceases to function.
(incidentaly, mass comm. mediums, like the bigmoney-to-many paradigm of TV, force consumer desires in planned directions. Is this good or bad in light of the evolutionary view of capitalism?)
uh - the farmer ALWAYS resells the seed. It's called grain, and we make bread, pasta, cereals, and many other wonderful things with it. and we also feed it to our livestock, who do the same.
House of cards, like the man said.
Capitalism is just fine for many things. More socialist systems work better elsewhere. Other types of organization work better in other places. There is no need to say, "Capitalism: now and forever." All systems have their problems, all systems have their benefits. (the problems don't ever go away, because the problems are people! :)
.5, 50% of the IP paragraph set applies, 50% of the property set applies. chosen randomly at inception of the law's application to the entity :)
The thing about software is that it's somewhere BETWEEN and idea and an object. It takes no work or cost to copy, move, use simultaneously. It does however take work (time and sometimes money, time==money for many) to PRODUCE. This is why neither the Completely Free or the Completely Closed methods work PERFECTLY.
Cost of production is one thing that the essay above didn't seem to touch. Is there a gradient between ideas and objects? Apparently, yes. Hard thinking time, boys and girls.
(idea: define two sets of laws with the same number of atomic paragraphs, each paragraph meta-isomorphic to it's paired partner. one set for IP, the other for physical property. then, for each entity wishing to be covered by the laws, assign a number 0..1 to it, 0 being more IP-ish, 1 being more physical-ish. then, say, for a particular entity of IP/obj-ishness of
Point one: It was unreadable. Most of us digested it pretty well, why not deal with it?
Point two: The guarantee that the inventor will be able to get a return on investment. This is completely silly. Lawmakers are not responsible for making sure you succeed. That is your the inventor's problem.
Point three: I've got nothing against the poll for lamest article.. sounds like fun! But if you've got a beef with an article, your comments and possible counter-article are your weapons. Closing your eyes (not wanting to see it) is not.
Remember: Democracy is not so much your rights to freedom as your responsibility to understand and keep them. All information is valuable, whether true or false, whether agreeable or disagreeable.
(i make no excuse for my spelling & grammar. it may be terrible, please deal with it)
>Our modern economy is largely based upon the
>"illogical" property scheme that forces the
>public to pay for copyrighted works. This economy
>has allowed the developed world to reach to the
>highest standards of living in history.
Actually no. It (sadly like many such systems before it) allows the highest standards of living for a few, an admittedly nice standard for more, and absolute piss-shit crap for the rest.
What we are looking for is not to increase the absolute or even average measure of quality of life. what we want is to increase the low end of it.
I will detract from the success of this economy, as I will detract from the success of any system, because NO SOCIAL SYSTEMS CAN BE PERFECT. Point being, constant analyses of success and failures of all systems is required. This is democracy.
...
...
Except maybe killing anyone who happens to be unhappy.. but then we'd need mind-reading machines to find out what they were thinking.. and we could drug them up to be happy.. oh well.
It is not perfect, but it is an attempt to protect the motivation to invent.
I thought the best motivation was capitalism. The only think IP protects is theft of design. In the case of hardware goods. It is kind of easy to copy a design (a bottle of Coke for example).
In the case of software, to copy the design is hard, unless you find that writing 1,000,000+ lines of code is easy. So for that case, IP actually slows down invention, since it creates hurdles to improve on designs.
In the hardware case, you can look at the bottle of Coke and improve on that design without violating the IP. Can you do the same with software ?
Nothing is impossible to the man who doesn't have to do it himself.
Is it just me, or does anyone else think that it is a little bit deceitful the way this article was presented?
:).
:(
:)
The *ENTIRE ARTICLE* was written by Tucker, not the slashdotter. I read the disclaimer at the top, which stated "I excerpted the relevant portions."
Immediately following is a paragraph in block-quote format, in italics, as if it were indicating that that were the quote from Tucker's essay.
In reality, however, the entire essay as presented was from Tucker's essay.
I also find it deceptive that at the very top, Rob says, The following was written by slashdotter Kevin S. Van Horn, or whatever his name is (sorry, rushing off to dinner and don't have time to go back and check
Perhaps these two situations (the "the following was written by" and only one paragraph being in block-quote italics) were oversights on Rob's part... but I doubt it
And, after reading so many of the comments (all of them, actually), it is apparent that very few readers recognized that the slashdot contributor wrote zero essay.
But then again perhaps it is simply a wonderful example of what he thinks of putting your name on someone elses "Intellectual Property".
Comments and Flames both welcome, but please be polite
Respectfully,
James S. Blachly
So, I work at a company that is encouraging patents. They offer incentives for patent applications and patents granted. Big incentives. Economically, it would benefit me greatly to derive some patent from our product line. However, the academic side of me wonders at whether patents can stifle the creation of new solutions based upon my patented work? So, what I'm looking for is some reflection upon the morality of patents. In mulling it over it seems that they're a way to hoard your kill (much like a vulture spreading it's wings over a carcass). I don't know if that jives well with my notions of open exchange of ideas. Thoughts?
The large unwashed masses who just want to take money from the good hard working people is largely an invention by the media and politicians who like to feed upon people's hate and fear. Every welfare recipient who I have ever talked to would love to get a job that can support their families, but there aren't jobs for everyone right now. The ironic part of it is that capitalism as it exists in America right now actually works to maintain a large group of uneducated poor people. I love free enterprise and many of the ideals of capitalism, but be careful when you bring your weapons of fear and hatered to bear on those disgusting people who just want to leach off of you; you may find you do as much damage to your own humanity as anything else.
Cheers,
Ben
I want to start by saying that Joshua has made very good and sensible points elsewhere in this thread, and I respect those opinions. However, in this case he is just plain wrong. Ask yourself why most people get up in the morning and go to work. Do they do it because they love each and every human being on the planet and believe that they are providing some necessary service to their fellow man, or do they do it because they want to secure prosperity for themselves and their families? They do it for themselves, and it is altogether proper that they do so, because they are individuals, which I take to mean that they are ends in their own right, not merely some small cog in a society. A society is only a group of individuals. When someone claims something is "good for society," what they're actually saying is that it is good for the greatest number of individual people in that society -- and they usually say this without regard for whether those benefited are the ones doing the work. Therefore it may be "good for society" for millionaires to give all their money away (greater number of people benefit), but it is surely unjust that they do so, unless they have a personal desire to do so. Greed does work. The amazing advances we have seen in standards of living around the world in the past century are _not_ due to people who decided to improve farming methods or medicines or whatever because they loved others. They did it because they wanted to make money. In a free Capitalist society, the only way to make money is to provide a useful product or service to fellow individuals. Everyone benefits. But remember that the motives of those who drive great societies are selfish, and they should be. Any economic system that does not reward, first and foremost, those doing the work, in effect makes of them sacrificial animals, _compelled by force_ to give of themselves for the benefit of others without just compensation. For a more comprehensive view of the metaphysical basis of Capitalism -- and hence Greed -- as the only economic system proper to mankind, I refer you to Ayn Rand's _The Virtue of Selfishness_.
-Noodle
As our society becomes more advanced, more and more value comes from ideas. Even natural resources are a product of human ingenuity (Julian Simon). If intellectual property is not property, than nothing is.
If intellectual property is not a staqndard of value, what is? There is not a thing on this planet of value that is not the product of thought. Everything is made of natural resources, so demonstrating that natural resources are a product of thought is sufficient to show that everything is.
To extract a resource from the earth requires tools. To make the tools requires invention. Which is more valuable, the person who makes the tool, or the person who can only use it? If the tool is a shovel, there might be some room for debate. If the tool is a backhoe, or a dump truck, the answer is some what less open. It takes years of training before someone can develop machinery as complex as that used to harvest resources. On the whole, it takes considerably less time, and considerably less innate intelligence, to learn how to use that machinery. To say that the inventor of the machinery is not worthy of compensation while the user of the machinery is, is to be blinded to who is truly providing more value.
An additional point regarding natural resources: they are only valuable because we can make things out of them. The products we can manufacture from natural resources were invented. Without their invention, we would see no value in those resources. Once again, ideas reign supreme.
So, if ideas are not to be regarded as worthy of monetary compensation and protection under law, what is? The source of all value is ideas. If they are not protected, nothing else can be.
For your example, the plans for an atomic bomb are the easy part, getting or producing the parts are the problems.
Getting or producing the parts without giving all the people involved radiation poisoning is another problem.
+++++
The harder you look the less you see. That's what we're up against.
> Why should I be forced to give away not only the
> binaries for an application I develop, but also
> the source code?
It seems that few people (especially those who do not like copyleft) get this. It is a basic right of any human being to keep things private. If you do not want to disclose something, nobody should be able to force you doing so. Richard Stallman had explicitly made strong negative comments that some "public licenses" (like ASPL and the early NPL) denying such right.
What GPL say is that "if you give it to somebody else, you must not restrict the one receiving your work". That is, you must not deny the right of others to copy, distribute, modify, disassemble, profile, etc. your work. Note that this is exactly the idea of freedom. You are not free to kill me, because by doing so you deny my basic freedom to live. You are not entitled to deny my freedom.
> Should artists be forced to give away their
> paintings? No. Should authors have to give you a
> copy of their books? No. Should a farmer have to
> give you his produce? No.
Artists should not deny you from taking photos of their paintings (at least, when you're not using flash which can damage their painting). Authors should not restrict you from taking ideas from his story and write your own. Farmers should not say no to other farmers using exactly his method to grow their crops. They are all socialistic concepts. When people are not restricted, the whole society benefit. When they are restricted, only the first inventor benefit.
> So, you are saying that the value of my work is
> only that which I can expect to get back if I
> freely distribute the result? (zero)?
It is damned wrong that you can expect nothing back if you have free distribution. If Richard Stallman did not show it clearly enough, the whole OpenSource thing is to show you the contrary. In short, it tries to break the only way to reason that IP laws are needed.
> By that logic, nobody should be paid to code.
> There aren't enough hobbyist programmers to
> fulfill users' desire for programs.
Programs have their use. This makes it more unnecessary to have IP laws on them. If distributing a painting earns you nothing, you might not have the motive to produce it (some will, anyway). But if distributing programs (say, a word processor) do not earn you a penny, there will still be places (say, in the office) where the need of the program exceed the cost of producing it. Programs still get written.
I need to clarify sentence 1, paragraph two. Man is under NO obligation. The NO there is imperative. Thank you
If you were me, you'd be good lookin'. - six string samurai
When man first decided to stick a seed in the ground and nurture it to maturity and then eat the grain that resulted, property rights, both physical (in the ground that he worked and in the produce that his diligent effort produced) and intellectual (the knowledge that he gained from doing so) took a vast turn of departure from his hunter-gatherer past. It was then left up to that man (for the PC crowd, OR WOMAN) to distribute his new found knowledge amongst his peers or to keep it to himself. Fortunately for all of us in the First World who are content to not wallow around in our own filth, but to progress towards an even higher standard of living (and an Audi S4 Quattro), he decided to share his discovery. Millions of ideas and improvements later, we have our modern, Industrial agriculture that is capable of feeding everyone in the world, 5 times over, if they have the cash to carry. :)
However, it MUST be noted that, regardless of the benefit to himself or to the survival of his family, that man was under absolutely obligation to share his findings. He could attempt to hide them from others, he could have simply walked away and never returned to his new found method (although others would surely discover the principle, as many cultures did indeed "simultaneously" discover and implement agriculture independently of one another).
What disturbs me is that, besides the marxist crowd, most people would not deny the fact that the man has a right to eat what he has sown. The premise of the Free Software (not necessarily the FSF or any other organization) people is that he did not have the right to withhold his discovery, his knowledge, from others. Now, in the times that agriculture emerged from the receding glaciers of the Pleistocene, he was sure to have been seen by others, and then imitated if he were to prove successful (actually, agriculture was a gradual adaptation process, but that's really beyond the scope of this post). This premise is flawed.
You have the right to what you produce. Period. If you produce software, using the tools that you've acquired, the knowledge that you've learned and discovered for yourself (learning is not an osmotic process, try sleeping with a K&R under your pillow at night and see for youself), the skills that you've honed through years of diligent practice, it's yours. Period. If you want to give it away, then fine. Do it. If you want to sell it, fine, do it. If you want to erase it from your harddrive forever, no one can stop you. The article wants to pretend that you don't have the right to what's inside your head. Rubbish.
The Open Source movement is a wonderful example of what can happen when you do like that wonderful man 12000 years ago did: he shared his knowledge and allowed people to take a crack at improving his methods. Some people were merely content to use what was there, others made the effort to improve. This is very much like the Open Source community today.
Yet, you have to remember, a product of the mind is the same as the product of your hands, as if you could differentiate the two. And if you choose to give away your products, free of monetary attachments, it's your choice. But don't let ANYONE tell you it's not your right.
If you were me, you'd be good lookin'. - six string samurai
With the exception of supporting moderate welfare and socialized healthcare, I consider myself a capitalist (more specifically an entrepeneur). I have determined that the only thing that separates capitalism from the anarchy (or barbarism that idealist/socialists call it) is the legal system. Capitalism, in the last 100 years, has innovated in ways all other forms of government since the dawn of civilization combined cannot remotely match. While people have shown that they WILL work for the greater good, they will not do it as fast or effective as when they do it for their own good. The net has been in a semi-mature state for about 20 years now, but look at it in actual utility/value today vs. 2 years ago. Ecommerce has forced the pace to be quickened. While we have moguls making vast sums of money, we can also reap the benefits of thier innovation/effort by doing practically everything online, where the old .edu-dominated net was simply a big messy library. Back to the point: IP laws should be designed to grant an immediate benefit to the few who concieve it, and a long term benefit to the public. This is why patents have lifespans. WIthout IP laws, the big corps that everyone is so afraid of would dominate completely because of thier vast production resources. The little guys would have no chance to grow and we would basically become a corporate state, which almost identical to a socialist state if you really think about it....
This is not the greatest sig in the world, this is just a tribute.
It would be nice...
/.ers
However, patents ARE used coercively by large organisations and you cannot just ignore it.
Software patents are already being granted in ways that people would disagree with - witness Microsoft's patenting of the W3C works in progress (the CSS & Dynamic HTML specs). So, how do we relistically prevent this?
One thing would be to open up the patenting process so that people who have no knowledge of the industry that the patent applies to cannot grant patents. This would (maybe) prevent Microsoft snapping up the public domain work by others - "free" licence aside.
There are no easy answers and banning software patents (however usful this would be to the OpenSource movement aside...) is not the answer.
Cheers
indeed, my good man.
-- your knees hurt, don't they?
support your content with clickthroughs to amazon, etc. plus ad banners.
-- your knees hurt, don't they?
i think the confusion here is the notion that somehow because something is not physical that it shouldn't be treated as real. within the context of society this is obviously not true - ideas/ip can and do have great impact. there's some basic levels here: physical, social, and knowledge. to argue that physical and maybe social should have property protections but knowledge should not doesn't hold water...as we move into the informati0n age the question isn't if but how the protection of intellectual property is regulated.
-- your knees hurt, don't they?
ideas come from people; the other way around is simply not true.
-- your knees hurt, don't they?
some /.'ers need things explained in anti-microsoft terms, you just performed a valuable service
-- your knees hurt, don't they?
Well, I agree we should look into this as a society, however there are pieces of information that not everyone needs to know!!! What if instructions for the ATOM Bomb were public domain... I mean I know this is slightly extreme... but, nonetheless, true... If I come up with a killer Idea, or a program that people will pay tons o money for.... then Whats wrong with me making some cash from that... I feel its morally more right to get paid for ideas than to get paid for stuff. Think about it, manufactured stuff is usually there because someone in a position of power broke subservient people's backs to get their stuff out.
I say that this was a great essay, but it viewed everything from only one angle.
Ruler of creeper, mortal and scallop.
Your attempt at correcting Jerrod's admittedly shakey understanding of US History is admirable (read the other posts for that information), you information, especially of the principles where incorrect.
Of 80% will get the most casulties; they have 60% more of the population than 20% (duh...). If you look at a percentage of each population, you will find that of the population without slaves, only 65% of them fought, while 63% of slave-owners fought.
And, you premise of why they fought is totally inaccurate. Slavery wasn't even an issue in 1861; although the revisionists would have you think otherwise, it was really a minor, to-be-dealt-with-after-the-others issue. Both sides, North and South, treated it as such, mainly because they knew when the others issues were resolved, this would resolved with it (one of the issues being the reformation of the Southern agarian economy). No, the war was fought over the states rights; many of them believe they were being infringed upon by the federal government, the federal government would not back down, saying as the majority (the Northern states) backed the more centralized government.
Additionally, I ask you this: would 75,000 free blacks sign up, voluntarily, to defend slavery? No... they wouldn't. And yet 75,000 black Southerns, ALL FREE MEN, signed up in 1861-1865 and fought in regiments along side the white regiments, and many served with distinction. In fact, Confederate general Nathan Bedford Forrest (know founding, then dissolving the Ku Klux Klan and his previous life as a slave trader) said that the black company that fought under him were the best fighters had seen, and "I trust them more than any white man under my command." Hmmm... doesn't sound like a slavery issue to me...
Please pardon the rant; I just wanted to set the record straight.
Yes I can respond to this; in fact, the title graces my library at home... I just so ask that you wait until 6pm est, so I can get there, tell you the title, author, publication date, and even cite the page for you, rather than doing piece posting until then. I also have family diaries and bibles, which, btw, count as legal documents all stating the same. Two of the men whom I have the diaries for are Thomas Chiles Perrin, a prominent South Carolina statesman, and his son George Clopton Perrin. Additionally, Seaborn Howard Wade and Francis McCall, statesmen in Georgia, have record much the same in their own diaries. All of these books are available in the archives of their respective states, and I believe (am not sure, though) that a copy of Thomas Perrin's is in the Library of Congress. As for the quote by Nathan Bedford Forrest, check his memoirs and war diaries, specifically the time period after the battle of Chickamauga (ugh... please excuse the spelling). Again, when I return home I can give you a more specific citation, like the date in the diaries. If you want more specific data, let me go home and come through my stuff (btw my family has kept extensive documentation on this since we are from south Carolina and Georgia).
I also have to point to Klink's reply: why would the Southerns start a war over an issue that you state they had won? Forgetting that matter, why would leave the Union over a matter that they would not mention in any of the Ordinances of Secession?
I feel, for some reason, the need to state that, no, I do not believe that slavery was right, regardless of the reason. I do feel that more could have been done to rectify that and the larger reasons that precipitated that War Between the States (it not was a civil war... they were NOT members of the Union, and had already been recognized as such by President Buchanan; Lincoln himself didn't even use that term... but then, that's just nit-picking), and that it was through faults on both sides that more was not done.
I also remind you that the Dred Scott case had been resolved in 1854; the intervening six years saw it largely put behind them. And don't even get me started on Uncle Tom's Cabin...
Something else; check the newspapers, North and South, for the headlines during late 1860 - June 1861. And I mean major newspapers, not the political ones like the sundry of newspapers produced by William Garrison and Co. (aka The Abolitionist, etc.). I think you will be surprised by what you see.
Server is down at work, and tis 5:00pm... gonna be a little later than 6 when the repost rolls along, as I am liable to not get hom until later... I promise, however, it will be online before I am in bed (bedtime = 12-3AM)... look for it before midnight, though; I wanna get to bed early tonight...
And I'll try to wirte in complete sentences this time... =)
Cause the issue was not slavery... read the posts just below this one, and come back later tonight for a fuller explanation with references.
Craw wrote:
>Dred Scott was in 1857 and that decision also declared that the Missouri Compromise was unconstitutional. That part of the Dred Scott Decision was critical, IMHO. The Kansas-Nebraska Act came a few year earlier (also related to the Missouri Compromise).
You're right; I got the date wrong there. I guess I got some dates messed up, something (I think of which ones it would be). Anyways, I think it had been agreed that that particular case and its decision would have removed slavery as a reason for secession, for it essentially allowed slavery anywhere. If anything, it mainly infuriated the abolitionists. But the Southerns remained unconcerned; I could not find a single mention of the case after its decision in 1857 in Thomas Chiles Perrin or Francis McCall's diaries last night (I am not saying that I may not have missed it, although that is unlikely).
Craw continued with:
>Lincoln declared that the secession of the southern states was "illegal" (I can't remember the actual legal aspects). Hence, there was no actual breakup of the US and the conflict was a civil war. Of course the two sides greatly disagreed over this legal wrangling, and on Lincoln's decision to maintain occupancy of southern forts (like Sumter).
Well, there was a break-up; a new government was formed, ALL forts in the South (at least in the states that had seceeded) except for Sumter had been abandoned; Lincoln did want to maintain that one fort in Charleston, I think to maintain some military presence (and an eye on Southern trade, as Charleston was the main Southern port on the Atlantic), although I could very well be wrong on this, as I am speaking from memory, and I do not have the source in front of me. As for the legal aspects, there were no laws say you could not leave the Union, and in the Constitution, as it was constructed, there was nothing to prevent them. In fact, the 10th Amendment states: The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people. Nowhere in the Constitution is removal from the Union mentioned, and it was generally assumed, by North and South, that if you cames of free-will, then you may leave. Lincoln was merely pulling a political move to maintain status quo because he feared a war would, if not now, eventually erupt; Lincoln was an excellent politican and statesman... he understood that he needed to get the South back in the Union to maintain the financial stability of the nation. The vast majority of statemen from the North recognized the fact that the Southern states were no longer part of the Union; if they were, why did they have to be readmitted after the war? I also would like to point out that the term "Civil War was not applied to it until several years after the war by a newspaperman for a New York newpaper (the Times? I'm not sure... need to check that out).
Craw then proceeds to say:
>IMHO, the War Between the States was the result of political and economic conflicts between the north and the south. The issue of slavery was inherent in both issues. However, the war did not start with the northern mantra of "Let's free the slaves." Most people, back then, were not that enlighten.
Perhaps I understated the importance of slavery in an effort to show the importance of states' rights in this struggle; I think you said it best.
And as far as the John Brown movie, yeah, RMS would work well...
The Terminator complex, particularly, was developed elsewhere with public money and then sold to Monsanto.
bT, a natural pesticide normally used in brief infrequent doses, will be made useless by wide insect exposure to bT-infused crops. Monsanto admits this; they still see no responsibility to leave it as a public good. (I'm sure they're happy to ruin any pesticide they don't sell.)
Lewis Thomas waxes poetical about the tremendous boost to the public welfare when science in general started to publish.
In Isaac Newton's day, to return to math, mathematicians challenged each other to solve set problems, so they *didn't* publish their techniques - and of course advances came much more slowly than they do now, even in small fields.
Of course we have to come up with some other way to feed the mathematicians - pretty much social cachet in sponsoring good universities, with some practical pay for teaching - but open inquiry is so much more productive than closed that we're all richer anyway.
Actually, in parts of Europe in parts of the Middle Ages, the general state of health was as good as it was until after WWI - an uncrowded peasant existence can be pretty good for you.
The transition from peasant to postindustrial, now, that hurts.
One would think that if you had actually read the article and disagreed with it, you would tell us which particular arguments of Tucker's you find fault with, and why. So let me dissect your comments, and tell you just what I find wrong with them.
> These are all socialistic concepts. [...]
> Capitalism is just fine by me. Free market [...]
As a matter of fact, I suspect that I am a rather more consistent supporter of free markets than you are. I am a free-market anarchist. I don't believe in socialized medicine, socialized education, socialized transportation (State-owned roads), socialized jurisprudence (State-controlled monopoly courts), nor socialized crime control (State-controlled monopoly police).
> If I spend my free time developing a product,
> or idea, that others want, I should damn well
> be able to charge them a compensatory fee.
Nobody's saying that you have to give anybody information for free. But IP (intellectual property) supporters make the astounding claim that you have the right to forcibly prevent other people from making use of information they have acquired, in the absence of any contractual obligation.
> the first time someone tries to TAKE something
> I have developed myself,
Here is where the analogy with concrete things breaks down completely. If I use an idea that you thought of, or make a copy of a program you wrote, book you wrote, painting you produced, etc., I HAVE TAKEN NOTHING FROM YOU -- you still have exactly what you had before. Unless I whack you over the head and/or steal or destroy some *physical* property of yours, I CANNOT TAKE INFORMATION OR IDEAS FROM YOU. In stark contrast to concrete things, ideas and information are infinitely replicable.
At this point you may argue that you are deprived of the benefit you would have received by controlling all use of your idea. In other words, you are deprived of the benefits of a monopoly. Tough. Coca Cola loses billions every year to competing companies because it is deprived of the benefits of a beverage monopoly.
> Why should I be forced to give away not only
> the binaries for an application I develop, but
> also the source code?
Nobody's forcing you to do anything. It's the IP advocates who want to use force against people. If you're thinking of the GPL, the irony here is that the GPL only has power to make you give out source code (absent an explicit contract) if you accept the notions of intellectual property and copyright. Only if we discard the notion of IP are you freed from the obligation to make source code available when you modify a GPL'ed work (unless you've entered into an explicit contract to do so.)
What happens when engineered DNA leaks into wild plant populations? What happens when armored weeds and other exotics appear that have DNA-engineered protection from insects and other organisms that normally eat such plants and keep the ecosystem in balance? As is usually the case with resource exploitative industries, they hoard the lucrative IP while using the unknowing public to shoulder the huge risks implicit in their undertakings (Exxon Valdez, Bhopol, Chernobyl, etc.).
There are interesting parallels between the agriculture and software businesses. Both industries have their IP landlords who possess highly developed methods for enforcing hegemony. It is the nature of an IP landlord to create a lucrative proprietary business model with considerable barriers to entry (enforced by patents, proprietary closed standards, needs for substantial capitalization, etc.) If you are a farmer who doesn't use the latest cost-cutting, yield-improving technology, the ruthless commodity markets will ensure you will be put out of business by people who do.
Open Source & Linux is the same kind of reaction to this phenomena of corporate greed as the Organic Farming movement is to the agricultural community. And like Open Source, organic farmers have had to build their infrastructure from scratch -- detoxing fertilizer & pesticide saturated lands, developing organic alternatives to the same, and building distribution and marketing channels from the ground up. Most importantly, organic farmers use robust, "open source" seeds that have been cultivated since long before the concept of IP was even contemplated by the primate brain.
Sure, sell your painting and your corn and your books. The argument says that IDEAS and THOUGHTS should not be sold - the ideas in the book, the image that you painted, etc. Other painters should be able to paint the same thing, right? Would you like it if someone copyrighted the linked list and you had to pay to use one every time? Go ahead and charge for the app, if you want to, but the ideas for the app should not be protected. Like SSH for Windows and WinAmp, people have gone and made money off of open sourced things.
It really depends on how you look at it. Intellectual Property really isn't neccesary, even for business.
This becomes clearer when ye take a look at _where_ the value placed on ideas comes from. It comes from the _work_ that the individual(s) who created it put into it.
So, sure, authors, programmers, artists, and software companies deserve to be paid. They deserve to be paid for the same reason teachers, plumbers,or the telephone company deserve to be paid, they do valuble work, they provide a valuble _service_, not for creating valuble products.
It's the programmING, not the program that's valuble, the writING, not what's written.
Any idiot (or machine) can make a million copies of a program, or piece of text. What takes effort (and thus creates value) is designing that in the first place.
Intellectual Property is a distraction. What we need is more protection and focus on those who provide Intellectual Services, rather than more legal whoo-haa trying to define 'Intellectual Property'.
-- -- The Dragon De Monsyne
First let me highlight valid points:
The problem with all arguments(including later posts) is that they attempt to side with one point at the cost of completely ignoring others.
Let me add a few more points/examples to the discussion:
First off, if source code is physical why would algorithms not be physical? In essence, source code is just a bunch of algorithms put together to form a bigger algorithm. So you are saying the set of algorithms is a product and should be allowed to be patented, but the individual algorithms are not? What if I had the source code to do just the individual algorithm itself? Would that be physical and hence morally patentable?
Your second argument is that algorithms are just "mathematical constructs which were always there". How were they always there? Someone needed to have thought long and hard to develop and discover these mathematical ideas. If they are always there then why are there people today who are still doing research in mathematical and computational algorithms? When they discover something new, should they not be rewarded for their hard work?
I am NOT saying that I disagree with the FSF movement, because it has been a great benefit to myself and others. However, I do believe that individuals should be rewarded for their work. If they choose to be rewarded with monetary items, then that is their right. On the other hand, if they choose to be rewarded by recognition, pure enjoyment of the task, or some other way, that is also their right. In fact, the latter is what motivates the contributors of the FSF movement.
You've misunderstood what I've said. In fact what you've written complements in some ways what I wrote.
I simply made two arguments. One was to counter attack the person I was replying to who said that algorithms didn't have intrisic value but if software used it, the source did. The second argument was arguing that algorithms (and ideas) do have instrinsic value and are therefore worth rewarding those that come up with them.
A possible solution for abolishing IP without stifling innovation would be to use a broker:
Company X will, if Y$ or more is received at date Z, undertake the proposed research. Payment can be for best-effort (without IP, there can be monthly progress reports to the general public) or on successfull completion only, and can be subject to approval of an auditing body.
If the total amount is not received, the research will not be undertaken, and the money refunded.
People contributing will be those having an immediate need or desire for the new product or technology. The broker must, however, keep secret the amount of contributions received (even if the total amount is reached before the closing date) , so there's no point for possible contributors to wait and see. In this case, contributors will receive a proportional refund of the budget surplus. (e.g. the total is 1 M$, 2.5 M$ is received, so everybody gets back 60% of his contribution)
For instance, if a company were to research a wristwatch device that could monitor various substances in your blood, a lot of geeks and persons with various illnesses might fork up money just because it's a nifty thing or might improve their quality of life.
Also note that after the research is completed, everyone can offer for sale an 'implementation' of the product or technology because there is no IP, driving the price down.
So it all comes down to pay for the time of one or more inventors or researchers to invent or research the stuff you want.
But why would people pay rather than do nothing? If they do not pay, they risk the non-undertaking of the research. So they must make a cost-benefit analysis and arrive at an optimum contribution.
Another incentive might be to make these contributions tax-deductable (or partly, depending on the actual research)
Dearest Grandpa,
And so in response to some irresponsible revisionist history, the pendulm overcompensates towards the other direction. While not a crime, the reckless drawing of confusions certainly should be considered one at times.
Civil war not about slavery? Depends on where you look. If you asked the politicians, it certainly wasn't the only issue on the plate. Many were abolitionists but many were not. It's not like slavery was the latest thing - it existed in 1861, 1811, 1761 and on and on. As a personal note, I have always found it disheartening that at the political level, that slavery wasn't THE reason. What a great statement that would have been about the United States and its adherence to its stated values. Were I head of US Public Relations, I would whisper to those who would disagree, "Shut up! This way it makes us look like a moral, respectable nation."
But meanwhile, down at the recruitment stations, in the newspapers, amongst the writings of the common people and ultimately on the roads to battle, there you will find slavery being a much greater issue. From arguments ranging from economic preservation to religious dogma to codified racist leanings to a "don't push me around, I'll do what I want" attitude, slavery - and the effects of it's abolition - was certainly one of the primary issues to the masses.
Is 75,000 free blacks signing up supposed to douse this? Hardly. I'll ignore the large debate among various historians about that number for now and give you your 75k as it really doesn't matter. Why would they fight against the ending of slavery? Tell me this: which state said it was illegal for blacks to own slaves? Which state said it was illegal for blacks to hold concerns that were dependent upon a stable southern economy or even a slave-worked enterprises? Given southern propaganda claims that the northerners would destroy life as they knew it (not necessarily a bad thing), wouldn't it serve the interests of some - white and black - to resist that force? There are many of your willing recruits, Grandpa.
A psychological analysis of what it's like to exist in the deep south where as a black person, your inferiority was indoctrinated into your mind from the first beginnings of consciousness won't be approached here. However don't forget accounts reporting that not even every slave celebrated their "impending freedom" and some fought side-by-side with their masters against it.
To which I say "So what?" Examples of people being party to their and their own people's destruction lie in nearly every atrocity that could be called similar. Native Americans guided settlers to and through lands that were taken away from them. Not every Frenchman (Dane, Fin, Pole....) sulked when the Nazi's rolled into town. Some Indians resisted the end of British rule. Do these defectors lessen the gap between right and wrong? I hope not.
We now return you to your regularly scheduled post on the concepts of ownership of intellectual property.
Thank you,
Dave
"Huntred"