Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!rutgers!bionet!bloom-beacon!athena.mit.edu!captkidd
From: captkidd@athena.mit.edu (Ivan Cavero Belaunde)
Newsgroups: gnu.gcc
Subject: Re: Apple Employees Please Note
Message-ID: <12038@bloom-beacon.MIT.EDU>
Date: 15 Jun 89 20:20:35 GMT
References: <8906080252.AA02091@wheat-chex.ai.mit.edu> <2376@internal.Apple.COM> <457@algor2.UUCP>
Sender: daemon@bloom-beacon.MIT.EDU
Reply-To: captkidd@athena.mit.edu (Ivan Cavero Belaunde)
Distribution: gnu
Organization: Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Lines: 98

In article <457@algor2.UUCP> jeffrey@algor2.UUCP (Jeffrey Kegler) writes:
>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 fact that it deals with it in the actual Constitution, and not in an
amendment (a set of which is all the bill of rights is) has no bearing on
whether intellectual property is a right or a privilege.  The right to
vote is not on the bill of rights, and it doesn't make it any less a
"right."

> 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.

Actually, the text uses the word "right."  It is quite clear that Congress
has the power to regulate this right, but that does not imply that the
right to intellectual property does not exist.

> 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.

A "side effect"?  It is not a side effect, but the actual mechanism by
which "science and useful arts" are promoted.  A few people can work to
develop and extend a field in universities and research laboratories,
where emphasis on finished products is minimal.  By channeling the profit
motive, this provision created an environment whereby people have a
monetary incentive to put time and money in a development effort and
come up with improvements to the field.

> 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.

The constitution literally calls intellectual property a "right."  It
is not a privilege.  It is a right inasmuch as it is a right to own a house
or a car.  I have yet to hear from a lobby for the extension and
perpetuation of intellectual property.  I vehemently disgree with anyone
who believes that intellectual property as a right should not exist.
A person's own creations are as private as any private property can be.
They should certainly be owned by the creator, and in my view, the article
in the constitution simply limits the right of intellectual property
("for a limited time") to allow for the public benefit.  It is paradoxical
to argue that, with the decidedly individualistic bent of the Constitution,
the original intent was for the public benefit to be the main goal of
intellectual property protection.

>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 raises another question: who decides whether look-and-feel copyright
promotes or hinders the progress of science and useful arts?  I think
that some degree of protection is beneficial to progress overall.  The
Macintosh interface is not the be-all and end-all of user interfaces.
What incentives will developers have in 2000 or 2010 to develop improved
user interfaces (voice-recognition/motion detection/3D imaging/whatever)
if their efforts can be legally and easily copied?  As I see it, for the
sake of allowing PCs to work like Macintoshes now, the foundation of
intellectual property protection (the incentive to develop bigger and
better things) is being undermined.  Sure, a few researchers will continue
to develop stuff in "ivory-tower" universities and laboratories, but
it takes the profit motive to go all the way to finished product.  Besides,
university-developed technologies is generally geared towards the needs of
scientists and engineers and not towards the public as a whole.  If
universities and research labs were the only place where development of
technologies was being done, we probably wouldn't have the simple desktop
computer yet.

> 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.

The first part is true.  The second, however, is not.  The Supreme Court
overrules congress in various areas, and it hardly seems likely that
legislation would be precise enough (it hardly ever is) and it falls again
to the courts to precise exactly what is protectable and what isn't.

>But we certainly have every chance to influence Congress, and to steer them
>to return to the real purpose of intellectual property.

Which is to allow people to profit from their efforts.  The public benefit
*is* and *should be* secondary - I don't like Marxist-sounding ideas.

>Jeffrey Kegler, President, Algorists,

-Ivan Cavero Belaunde

Internet: captkidd@athena.mit.edu