[clug] Re: A most interesting read, most interesting

[Martijn van Oosterhout]

On Fri, Dec 29, 2006 at 11:52:42PM +1100, Peter Anderson wrote:
> This 'contract' between idea developer/inventor 
> and the State is based on an initial premise that the developer/inventor 
> actually owns the idea/invention, otherwise why is it necessary to form 
> the 'contract' (or grant the protection right).

I see it the other way round. By entering into a contract with the
state, a right is created where previously there was none. There was no
ownership until the contract existed.

In essence, you having a right is simultaneously restricting someone
else's rights. Having property rights merely implies you can restrict
other people from using that land. Where the contract comes in is that
the state promises to recognise your right legally, thus creating an
ownership where there was none.

My problem with patents stems from the phrase "Invention is 10%
inspriation, 90% perspiration". I see patents as rewarding the 10%
while stymying the 90%. I'll gladly accept a patent for something that
genuinly took time to create and build and sort out the actual details.
I just get terribly depressed when I see people getting patents for
things that have not yet been built, or even attempted.

The problems with copyright come from an entirely different direction.

Have a nice day,
-- 
Martijn van Oosterhout   <kleptog at svana.org>   http://svana.org/kleptog/
> From each according to his ability. To each according to his ability to litigate.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: Digital signature
Url : http://lists.samba.org/archive/linux/attachments/20061229/b7ecebf5/attachment.bin