Newsgroups: trial.misc.legal.software
Path: utzoo!utgpu!watserv1!maytag!looking!brad
From: brad@looking.on.ca (Brad Templeton)
Subject: Re: Intellectual Property
Organization: Looking Glass Software Ltd.
Date: Fri, 10 Aug 90 04:37:21 GMT
Message-ID: <1990Aug10.043721.2081@looking.on.ca>
References: <80565@aerospace.AERO.ORG>

In article <80565@aerospace.AERO.ORG> abbott@aerospace.aero.org () writes:
>
>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?"

As I admitted, ownership is a legal construct.  However, in designing our
laws, we usually draw upon philosophical underpinnings.  These are varied.

Some would use a strictly utilitarian system, saying that patents exist
only to encourage disclosure by bribing the inventor with a temporary
monopoly.   I think that is one reason for patents, but many also feel
that there is something "right" about the inventor being rewarded.

In designing a law of property, we let people called owners control what
we call property.   For control is what ownership means.

We draw upon several ethics for this.  The utilitarian is just one.
But, as Yoda said, there is another.  It is based on the concept that
ownership should derive from creation -- that you own the results of your
labours.

Some say that you should own some of these results but not others.
The area of question is those results which are not in themselves
manipulations of matter.   I feel that's wrong, for it is creative work
that is the most valuable thing in society -- that's been proven time
and again.

People object to its ownership for a couple of reasons.

	a) It is hard to quantify.  While it's easy to see what "my car"
	   is, it's harder to see what "my invention" is -- at least for many.
	b) The result of strict physical labour is hard to copy -- it
	   usually requires the same labour over again.  IP is often
	   trivial to copy, and worst of all, it does not seem (on the
	   surface) to hurt the creator when you do it.   (Once you realize
	   that ownership is control, not posession, you see past this, but
	   many don't)
	c) It raises the sticky question of independent invention.


-- 
Brad Templeton, ClariNet Communications Corp. -- Waterloo, Ontario 519/884-7473