Xref: utzoo comp.society.futures:1951 comp.sys.mac.misc:2086
Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!clyde.concordia.ca!uunet!samsung!munnari.oz.au!bunyip!brolga!uqcspe!batserver.cs.uq.oz.au!brendan
From: brendan@batserver.cs.uq.oz.au (Brendan Mahony)
Newsgroups: comp.society.futures,comp.sys.mac.misc
Subject: Intellectual Property (Re: polarization also piracy)
Message-ID: <4534@uqcspe.cs.uq.oz.au>
Date: 9 Aug 90 02:06:04 GMT
References: <1990Aug6.052300.2514@world.std.com>
Sender: news@uqcspe.cs.uq.oz.au
Reply-To: brendan@batserver.cs.uq.oz.au
Distribution: comp
Lines: 61



fhapgood@world.std.com (Fred Hapgood) writes:

>A number of observers of the programming scene are of the opinion
>that the upcoming flood of software patents, taken together with
>the recent expansion by the courts of ownership rights in user
>interface copyrights, will cripple the development of the
>software industry in this country (and therefore the industry
>itself).

I think it is defintiely time to start seriously thinking about the
worth of continuing to apply physical property rights to intellectual
property. Some appropriate questions are:

1) What does it mean to "own" an idea?
2) How is it possible to enforce respect for this ownership?
3) What are appropriate ways for others to respect this ownership,
   i.e. what laws are appropriate for protection of ownership?
4) What rights should ownership entail?

Clearly ideas cannot be owned in the sense in which a building may be
owned. One cannot know of the existence of an idea without gaining
possesion of it. Ideas have no unique existence. They concurretnly be
used effectively by many people in many different ways. My use of an
idea in no way disrupts anotherrs use of the same idea.

At best ownership can be connected with invention or authorship.

Is it for the benefit of society that the author of an idea have sole
right of use of the idea? This is very reasonable in the case of
physical property for at least two important reasons:

1. physical property can solely possessed, and can usually only be used
   effectively by a sole owner;
2. those in sole possession of physical property have the means to retain
   sole possession, eg violent defence.

Given the 1 and the potentially destabilising influence of 2 it is in
society's interest to protect the right to continued sole possession.
(Except of course where 2 can be easily overcome :-) )
But neither point holds for intellectual property.

There is at least one very good reason for protecting the ownership of
an idea.

1. The author has a right to gain some benefit from the authorship.

Clearly it is in the best interest of society to reward the author
of good ideas, if for no other reason than the hope that more good ideas
will follow. But is sole control over the use of an idea an appropriate
reward? Especially given the fact that it is an unenforcable reward.
Are we in fact only ensuring reward for the powerful?

I look forward to some interesting submissions on this theme.

--
Brendan Mahony                   | brendan@batserver.cs.uq.oz       
Department of Computer Science   | heretic: someone who disgrees with you
University of Queensland         | about something neither of you knows
Australia                        | anything about.