Re: Some interesting economic facts

[Mark Hinds <zoro@nwnexus.com>]

Brett Glass wrote:

> You're describing a philosophy for which I've coined the term "Stallmanism"
> (after Richard Stallman): the notion that the entire concept of intellectual
> property is wrong and should be abolished.
> 
> I, personally, think that this is going too far. The Constitutional principle
> that giving inventors and authors the exclusive right to creative work FOR A
> LIMITED TIME will encourage creativity is sound and proven. The notion that one
> should be able to own raw information -- that is, that which is not the result of
> creativity -- is another matter. It's an extension that the Constitution does
> not allow (though Congress, lobbied by database companies and sports leagues,
> is trying to impose it anyway.) NDAs are yet another issue. NDAs are
> specific performance contracts. It'd be a bad idea to eliminate them, as they
> do serve useful purposes. But one might argue that their use for some specific
> purposes should be declared illegal.
> 
> --Brett Glass

The locking up of knowledge is simply an artificial creation. Take it
away
and just like the Y2K problem, life will go on. The only reason to
continue
these intellectual property laws is to promote the wealth concentrating
efforts
of those who can afford to own intellectual property. The vast majority
of
people derive no benefit. As to motivation, money does not promote the
best,
only the greediest. If there is a need then a means to satisfy this need
will develop.

BTW, my understanding is that the concept of patent originated in
England
(a Monty Python sketch? :-). A certain canon maker had developed a
formula
for steel(?) which allowed canons to be made significantly lighter so
your
ships could carry more and artillery could go faster. The fellow who
knew
the formula died without leaving it behind and so it was back to
the heavier canons. As a result the concept of patent was created as a
means
of getting critically useful information divulged, not as a nice thing
to do for clever people. The exclusive rights protection was the the 
necessary inducement.

So I've heard anyway. Correct me if I'm mistaken.