From: ctm@ardi.com (Clifford T. Matthews)
Subject: Re: patents and copyrights
Organization: ARDI
Date: Sat, 29 Aug 92 03:35:11 GMT

Dear Folks,

	I was expecting an onslaught of replies to my patent commentary,
and yet it appears that only one has been posted.  I'll answer it here,
but if a flood doth break, I will seek shelter (i.e. as said before, I
don't have time for net volleyball).

	Jeff Andle says "In high tech, a company or individual (depending
on their resources) can tie up years of personal effort and expenses on a
project that is fundamentally different from anything previously done."  If
you ignore the part about "fundamentally different than anything previously
done", then he is describing the situation I am in right now, as I type.
I started writing the foundation on which ARDI is based, *six years ago*.
If copyrights disappeared overnight, some $500,000 in expenses and lost
revenue would be "flushed down the toilet" and I would personally be holding
a lot of debt (I financed ARDI with personal debt; if ARDI goes under, I'm
holding the bag, and most of that is to family, who I wouldn't stiff through
bankruptcy even if I didn't have a severe disdain for bankruptcy on principal).

	In my particular case, the number of people affected would be fairly
small and I'd be willing to take my lumps for the benefit of a more free
(and prosperous and technologically advanced in my opinion) society.  However,
there's always the question of transitions, and I didn't attempt to propose
such a deal.  I was just making the point the "intellectual property rights"
are not rights at all, in fact, "intellectual property" isn't property either.

	In the abscence of the current copyright system, I wouldn't have
started work six years ago, but of course I would still be a productive
member of society.  Perhaps I would have done more teaching than coding and
that would have been *better* for everyone, who knows.  The point is, in the
absence of "intellectual property", you and companies that you found, or you
work for, would have to take into consideration the fact that others could
use ideas that you helped develop.  But it would be level, since you would
also be at liberty to use ideas that others helped devlop.

	I maintain that we have such awe inspiring technology, that if we
were to remove all the sources of friction in our economy that the cost of
living would be sufficiently low for people to do what they like to do.  We
are a very curious species; development would go on, and it is my assertion
that it would go on faster with a lack of I own this "idea", that "process",
the other "invention", then it would with it.  This is speaking as a creative
person who plays by the rules, but just thinks the rules produce *incredibly*
sub-optimal results.

	Check out the article on Cygnus in a recent issue of the Economist,
or just scan around the various net newsgroups and see what they're up to.
Given time, I can argue (what I believe to be) very persuasively against
intellectual property w.r.t. software.  I know software issues pretty well
and am a business person, to boot (check out our ad in the next issue of
NeXTWORLD, on newstands October 10th).  If you want to argue with me, bring
up pharmaceuticals; I can't claim to have much knowledge about them at all
(honestly officer), and so I have to admit that I'm out of my league, but
that's life; it is very hard to know a lot about a lot; I settle for knowing
a lot about a little, and using guiding principals to help me elsewhere.

	Look into patents and copyrights and you may be surprised by many
things, including the fact that a patent guarantees the monopoly whether or
not the same technology/method/process/invention was *independently* thought
up elsewhere.  No lover of liberty can possibly believe in such a thing, and
in fact, when as the U.S. drops in percentages of patents owned, there will
be a lot of Americans self-rightiously indignant that the furriners have 
all the patents.  What are we U.S. citizens? 1/20th of the world population?
What will happen when we own only 1/20th of the world patents... gosh, golly,
you'll see some *unprincipled*  opposition then.  If you can really think
about the future, think about patents when we have interplanetary travel.
Why was the U.S. able to thumb its nose at Britain so many years ago? 'cause
there was a big puddle in between... There's also the question of just why
*can't* you patent Math.  If patents are a good thing, and math is a good
thing, wouldn't allowing patents in math be a good way to encourage more
people to do more cool math?  Why *can't* you patent an idea?  Remember,
anytime you have to draw a line determining what is ok and what isn't, you
should consider whether the line should be there at all.  In many cases the
line is easy (right to swing a fist ends at your nose), sometimes it's a
real tough choice (abortion); in this case, it is my opinion that it's simple:
get rid of the line.

	Now that you've thought about patents, think about copyrights.  If you
aren't clear on the difference, head out to your local library.  As computers
get more and more powerful, it is realistic to start doing things that are
not thought of as black and white, with good old digitial logic.  If you have
enough bits, you can pack them in groups, assign colors to various numbers
and get arbitrarily precise color images.  Assuming the images are
copyrightable (that's what the courts say), where do you draw the line?  Can
I copyright one bit? two bits? three bits? four bits? ... remember, when you
get into as few as 256 bits, you can do things as neat as "patterns" on the
original Macintosh (8 bits by 8 bits; you can get clear differentiation there).
So, if you allow a copyright of 256 bits, but not 255 bits, you just need
to copyright the 255 bit string with a one appended and with a zero appended
and you now have two copyrights and effectively have copyrighted a 255 bit
string (actually, if you'e putting them in a square, you've probably
copyrighted a smaller string than that, since you probably also own the
reflections and rotations).  Maybe I'm baked and it is a tough issue like
abortion is; there should be a line, but it's hard to put down (btw, I'm
pro-choice, anti-abortion, something that many people can't understand, but
I'm also a strict vegetarian but I don't want any laws prohibiting the
eating of meat).  However, w.r.t. "intellectual property", it seems that it
would work very well if there were no line.

	Would people still write books?  Yes.  Would people still write
software? Yes.  Would people still produce movies? Yes.  Would people
produce movies like "Terminator 2"?  I don't know, but I while I can name
things that might not exist (such as ARDI in it's current incarnation) in
the absence of "intellectual property rights", it's harder to name specifics
that we'd have, but it is easy to see that it "may be possible" that we'd
have better software, hardware and other high tech stuff that would benefit
from the less expensive software and hardware.

	Remember, to hear some people tell it, without price supports, we'd
have no farmers and no food!

	My opposition is ethical, but I believe that there's a very pragmatic
argument to be made as well.  As I promised last time, if there's a flurry
of questions for me, I'll try to get around to answering them in one fell
swoop; remember, I'm not discussing anything that you're going to get to
vote on in the near future (like candidates, voucher systems, etc.).  I
*already* know that most people think technology would dry up in a nano-second
w/o patents & copyrights.  I'm not really trying to convert people, just
let it be known, there are *some* libertarians who are quite thoroughly
opposed to government granted monopolies, even when said monopolies pad
said libertarians paychecks (I think, after six years, I'll start drawing
a salary next month.  I have my fingers crossed).

	--Cliff[ord T. Matthews]
	stating his personal, not corporate, views
	ctm@ardi.com

p.s. I'm not trying to pick on Jeff Andle; I'll cede the point that he is
     backing convential wisdom and that most people that buck such thoroughly
     agreed upon wisdom are cranks and that a crank can't see himself as a
     crank.
Newsgroups: alt.politics.marrou,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.perot,alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.misc