From: mlee@esd.dl.nec.com (Michael Lee)
Subject: Re: Position on intellectual property?
Organization: NEC America, Engineering & Support
Date: Wed, 12 Aug 1992 22:50:43 GMT

From article <1hMKP5#9N5l0H8BtZlQ09ptSC8GV7PC=esr@snark.thyrsus.com>, by esr@snark.thyrsus.com (Eric S. Raymond):
> In <24639.Aug401.33.0592@virtualnews.nyu.edu> D. J. Bernstein wrote:
>> As for the Libertarian position, I would guess that a Libertarian would
>> support patents if and only if inventions are property. There is, to my
>> knowledge, absolutely no historical precedent for this ``natural law''
>> interpretation of patents. A Libertarian would probably conclude that
>> inventions are not property, and that the government has neither the
>> right nor the power to grant any sort of property rights for them.
> 
> This radical libertarian disagrees with you.  Inventions are property
> by the strictest Lockean test; the design of an invention is value,
> added to the materials composing it, and the inventor has a `natural
> right' not to be deprived of the value of his creativity by imitators.
> -- 
> 					Eric S. Raymond <esr@snark.thyrsus.com>


What about the right of independent inventors to invent the same or similar
thing and not be forced to pay royalties to the the first inventor?

Does inventing something entitle you to a stream of royalties from
independent inventors of same or similar objects?

My concept of property is that property must be tangible.

Is there an example (other than patents, copyrights, trademarks, etc.) where
intangible property is protected?

I agree that there is potential "unfairness" in a society where patents are
replaced by trade secrets, non-disclosure agreements, contracts, etc.

BUT, there is also "unfairness" when independent inventors are forced to
pay royalties to the first inventor.

It is also unfair when inventors of similar items are forced to pay
royalties to another inventor (or more likely a huge corporation) who has 
more lawyers.

Inventions are often produced independently and they are often based on the
prior work of earlier inventors.
The distinction between repackaging a bunch of prior inventions and a
brand-new invention is highly subjective.

Who invented the wheel, the gear, the pulley?
They are all round and have axles.  A clock is mostly gears, wheels and
pulleys.  Should the inventor of a clock get a patent?

It has to be "new".  What is new?  Are eccentric gears, cams, etc. "new"?

It is so subjective.
I cannot define obscenity, but I know it when I see it.  :-)

The patent office has a monopoly on issuing patents and is therefore
subject to enormous corruption just like the agency that issues permits to
manufacturers of drugs, the FDA.  It is inefficent.  It takes too long and
delays innovation.

The FDA is notorious for keeping new drugs off the market.  This makes all
drugs much more expensive and favors the big established drug companies by
keeping small innovative drug companies out of the market.

I believe that society will progress faster and there will be less
"unfairness" without patents.

Patents are a remnant of England where the King gave monopolies to various
manufacturers.  The King decided who could manufacture what products.
Now, the patent office decides.


-------------------------------------------------------------------
It is often stated (and certainly true) that the poor have no right
to the wealth of the rich.  It is seldom stated (but equally true)
that the rich have no right to the wealth of the poor.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
I prefer a small government which may permit some evil to
a large government which promotes evil at my expense.
---------------------------------------------------------

Michael Lee
mlee@esd.dl.nec.com
214-518-3807
Newsgroups: alt.politics.marrou,talk.politics.theory,alt.politics.elections,tal