Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!algor2!jeffrey From: jeffrey@algor2.UUCP (Jeffrey Kegler) Newsgroups: gnu.gcc Subject: Re: Apple Employees Please Note Message-ID: <457@algor2.UUCP> Date: 15 Jun 89 15:41:06 GMT References: <8906080252.AA02091@wheat-chex.ai.mit.edu> <2376@internal.Apple.COM> Reply-To: jeffrey@algor2.UUCP (Jeffrey Kegler) Distribution: gnu Organization: Algorists, Inc., Reston VA Lines: 51 In article <2376@internal.Apple.COM> wrs@apple.com (Walter Smith) writes: > Opinion: Anyone who thinks a good user interface is less the intellectual >property of its designer than a system's source code is the intellectual >property of its author must surely never have designed a particularly good >user interface. Two points I think might need clarification for some considering this issue. First, intellectual property is *not* a fundamental right. Second, a field in which intellectual property is non-existent can survive and thrive. To take the points in reverse order, my only publication of any significance is in mathematics. While I may be able to exercise a copyright over any clever phrasings, the math itself is not protectable. I can prevent someone from claiming he invented it, but I cannot control, or profit from, another's use of the math. Yet mathematics survives and thrives. If theorems and proofs were subject to some sort of intellectual property protection, mathematics would become much more difficult. Now, as for the first point. The Constitution deals with intellectual property not in the Bill of Rights, but in Section 8 of Article I, which enumerates the powers of Congress. The eighth of these is "to promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and inventions." It is quite clear this is a power of Congress, not a right of the inventor. Congress is given a clear quideline as to why this power is given. It is *not* to profit the inventor but to "promote the progress of science and useful arts". This of course means money for the author or inventor, but that is only a side effect. Any privilege granted creates a lobby for its extension and perpetuation, regardless of the original purpose of the privilege. And in justifying extensions of intellectual property before Congress, its claimants always pretend that they are being deprived of a right, and treat the public benefit, which is the sole proper purpose, as a secondary issue, or even an irrelevant one. A point was raised earlier in this forum that extensions of intellectual property which do not "promote the progress of science and useful arts", are, because of this language, unconstitutional. This may be true in some ideal sense, but it is clear that it is up to the discretion of Congress to decide what extent of intellectual property protection is warranted, and it seems very unlikely any court would choose to overrule the judgement of Congress. But we certainly have every chance to influence Congress, and to steer them to return to the real purpose of intellectual property. -- Jeffrey Kegler, President, Algorists, jeffrey@algor2.UU.NET or uunet!algor2!jeffrey 1762 Wainwright DR, Reston VA 22090