Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rutgers!bionet!ucselx!sol.ctr.columbia.edu!samsung!sdd.hp.com!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!aero!aerospace.aero.org!abbott From: abbott@aerospace.aero.org Newsgroups: trial.misc.legal.software Subject: Re: Intellectual Property Message-ID: <80565@aerospace.AERO.ORG> Date: 9 Aug 90 20:09:59 GMT Sender: news@aerospace.aero.org Reply-To: abbott@aerospace.aero.org () Organization: The Aerospace Corporation, El Segundo, CA Lines: 39 Brad Templeton writes: | I say that intellectual property is the truest form of property from | a philosophical standpoint, not a legal one. What do you mean by "property from a philosophical standpoint?" | ... | Legal ownership is of course a construct of society. But my relationship | to my creations and my labour is real. "Joe built that gadget, it is | Joe's gadget." is a true statement regardless of the existence of any other | people or any society or law. "That is Joe's land" hasn't got nearly that | strength. If you are talking about recognition, why not just say so? Why muddle the issue by talking about property? I agree that recognition is important; plagiarism is considered one of the worst academic crimes. | ... | When it comes to patent[s], some express concern that people might patent | "laws of nature." I find little ambiguity. It is clear that F = ma is | a law of nature, it is equally clear that complex algorithms that nobody | ever thought of before are not. I'm afraid its not all that clear to me. As you say: | Mathematics itself is a human construct. Laws of nature can be | expressed within mathematics, but mathematics itself is no law of | nature. Besides, F=mA isn't really a law of nature; its a Newtonian approximation (I believe). So F=mA is just the expression of an observation that has a relatively broad range of applicability. On the other hand, bubble sort always works. So why isn't it a law of nature? Whenever the sequence of operations specified by bubble sort occurs, the result is a sorted list. -- Russ Abbott