The often misunderstood original justification for patents was not to protect the Profits of the Evil Corporations(tm), but to encourage the free publication of technological advances so that they could be built upon.
By abolishing patents, we would force companies to use secrecy to protect their intellectual property, which would reduce rather than increase collaboration.
Anyhow, what's wrong with someone owning the fruits of their (intellectual) labor?
"Figments of Reality" by Ian Stewart and Jack Cohen
The theme of the book is "where does the mind come from?", and the authors present the beginnings of a contextual answer based on how the mind interacts with its environment. Their point is that the traditional, reductionist approach fails to explain the source of mind because it presumes that a certain bit of the matter must contain each function of the mind. Their approach is that this is not so, that the mind is a process executed by the brain and its interactions. To try to decompose the system further than this is like (using their analogy) trying to figure out how a car works by removing pieces until it doesn't... if you take off the wheels, it stops moving, so the wheels must make it move, right?
What the authors feel to be a much richer approach to this problem is to explain the mind by looking at the context of why the mind exists, and how it interacts with its environment in a self-reinforcing cycle to create itself. This may sound mystical, but it is not once you realize that by "environment" they are including the culture and knowledge assets of society. In fact, they whimsically refer to culture as a make-a-human kit" that exists in order to propagate itself. Or to be more exact, it exists *because* it propagates itself; they never make the mistake of attributing intentionality to nature.
If you have the time, and are interested in the subject, I would advise you to read the book youself. "Figments of Reality" develops the argument in a very clear and thorough manner that I presented merely the conclusion of above.
I agree with your summary of Lessig's belief's. He is using a common strategy among those (few) remaining supporters of government interference: claiming that a government activity is the same thing as a similar activity that would occur in the private sphere.
A more obvious example: There is no such thing as "no censorship". Every newspaper and television station omits many more stories than they cover. In fact, they omit an infinite number of possible stories, therefore there is an infinite amount of censorship. So why worry when the government wants to censor you just a little bit?
The fallacy here is the one so aptly pointed about by the libertarians and Randians, but not an invalid one for that: the fact that the government has the guns and the permission to use them make coercion on the part of the government qualitatively different than anything that can be generated by the worst of the private sector.
SizeProgrammer's corollary to Kaa's law: In most cases, a group of two is sufficient.
Just say that Judge Jackson rules that MS must, in penance for its past crimes, post all of its source code on this internet and quietly go out of business. All senior executives will be put in jail for violation of anti-trust for a term of 5-20 years, and barred from working in the computer industry except as a janitor for life. My question is a serious one: As a developer trying to make products that will help my business (in the financial sector) succeed, how am I helped by this scenario? Be honest with yourselves: how many anti-MS zealots are motivated by jealousy? Would you *be* Bill Gates if you had the chance?
Slashdot Mirror
By abolishing patents, we would force companies to use secrecy to protect their intellectual property, which would reduce rather than increase collaboration.
Anyhow, what's wrong with someone owning the fruits of their (intellectual) labor?
The theme of the book is "where does the mind come from?", and the authors present the beginnings of a contextual answer based on how the mind interacts with its environment. Their point is that the traditional, reductionist approach fails to explain the source of mind because it presumes that a certain bit of the matter must contain each function of the mind. Their approach is that this is not so, that the mind is a process executed by the brain and its interactions. To try to decompose the system further than this is like (using their analogy) trying to figure out how a car works by removing pieces until it doesn't... if you take off the wheels, it stops moving, so the wheels must make it move, right?
What the authors feel to be a much richer approach to this problem is to explain the mind by looking at the context of why the mind exists, and how it interacts with its environment in a self-reinforcing cycle to create itself. This may sound mystical, but it is not once you realize that by "environment" they are including the culture and knowledge assets of society. In fact, they whimsically refer to culture as a make-a-human kit" that exists in order to propagate itself. Or to be more exact, it exists *because* it propagates itself; they never make the mistake of attributing intentionality to nature.
If you have the time, and are interested in the subject, I would advise you to read the book youself. "Figments of Reality" develops the argument in a very clear and thorough manner that I presented merely the conclusion of above.
I agree with your summary of Lessig's belief's. He is using a common strategy among those (few) remaining supporters of government interference: claiming that a government activity is the same thing as a similar activity that would occur in the private sphere.
A more obvious example: There is no such thing as "no censorship". Every newspaper and television station omits many more stories than they cover. In fact, they omit an infinite number of possible stories, therefore there is an infinite amount of censorship. So why worry when the government wants to censor you just a little bit?
The fallacy here is the one so aptly pointed about by the libertarians and Randians, but not an invalid one for that: the fact that the government has the guns and the permission to use them make coercion on the part of the government qualitatively different than anything that can be generated by the worst of the private sector.
SizeProgrammer's corollary to Kaa's law: In most cases, a group of two is sufficient.
Just say that Judge Jackson rules that MS must, in penance for its past crimes, post all of its source code on this internet and quietly go out of business. All senior executives will be put in jail for violation of anti-trust for a term of 5-20 years, and barred from working in the computer industry except as a janitor for life. My question is a serious one: As a developer trying to make products that will help my business (in the financial sector) succeed, how am I helped by this scenario? Be honest with yourselves: how many anti-MS zealots are motivated by jealousy? Would you *be* Bill Gates if you had the chance?