Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!AI.MIT.EDU!rms
From: rms@AI.MIT.EDU
Newsgroups: gnu.gcc
Subject: Supposed intellectual property rights.
Message-ID: <8906100346.AA02699@sugar-bombs.ai.mit.edu>
Date: 10 Jun 89 03:46:48 GMT
Sender: daemon@tut.cis.ohio-state.edu
Distribution: gnu
Organization: GNUs Not Usenet
Lines: 47


    I disagree.  Apple does not want to "take away people's freedom to write
    software" in the general sense.  They DO wish to prohibit people from
    writing software that infringes on their intellectual property rights.  

This is a distinction without a difference.  Extending the definition
of property rights *is* taking away someone else's freedom.

The American Indians considered land to be common property.  They did
not try to bar the English from using the land.  But the English, once
established, started claiming to own land which the Indians had always
used.  When they acted to prevent infringement of their property
rights, they were taking away the traditional freedom of the Indians.

Not much later, the gentry in England started building fences around
the land that small farmers had traditionally used, but had no deeds
for.  (They had never needed any.)  The small farmers, kicked out to
make way for more profitable kinds of farming, were left without
means.  This was called "simple enforcement of property rights".  Now
historians call it "enclosure".


The text quoted above is misleading in another way as well: it speaks
of "intellectual property rights" as if their existence and
extent were generally accepted and uncontroversial.

In fact, this is precisely what the controversy is about.  What property
rights does Apple have?  What property rights should Apple have?

Apple is claiming a kind of property which three years ago was considered
outrageous but far-fetched by nearly everyone in the field.  Most still
consider it outrageous, but they are learning that they can't afford
to consider it far-fetched.

The question of whether Apple does have a new kind of property will be
decided first by judges, then by Congress and by public opinion.  We
are working to influence all of these.

However, debating this result is like debating who will win an
election.  The important issue is who *should* win.  That is what
people need to make up their minds about.

The Constitution itself might suggest a criterion: it says that the
purpose of copyright is, "To promote the progress of science and
useful arts."  In other words, if user-interface copyright actually
impedes progress as many people in the field believe, it is
unconstitutional.