Re: Some interesting economic facts

[Matt Deatrick <mattd@shocking.com>]

	You are mistaken. Patents go back to ancient Egypt. The priests
controlled the information concerning the flooding of the nile. This, of
course, was very important information for the agricultural section of
society, which is most of it. By informaing the populace at key intervals
the priests gained power, prestige, and many followers. That is the
earliest instance of patent behavior in a society I could find. 
	Matt


On Wed, 22 Apr 1998, Mark Hinds wrote:

> 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.
>