Re: [Patents] Washington Times: Internet Patents Divide Industry

Hartmut Pilch wrote:
> 
> > "Intellectual property" is not property.
> 
> The term could be turned around to be useful.
> E.g. one could say that only an exclusion scope that it is so narrow that
> it is attributable to an individual is "intellectual property".
> I.e. only copyright, not patents.
> By attributing a higher moral status to this individual "property", one
> can then argue against its expropriation by means of patents.


I understand this analysis.  But exclusive rights are statutory, not
natural, and taking a property rights analysis has its own problems, though
that analysis is very useful in a number of very strong, obvious, political
ways.  Information as such is intrinsically free.  We simply have to come
around to this.  It's useful to speak to legislators in this fashion,
because only when they understand that it's up to them to consider the true
impact of information and communications technology, and when they
understand that they have the power and responsibility to make the correct
decisions themselves, will they start to address exclusive rights
appropriately, with correct regard for the conditions of a free society. 
The following is another "common response" of mine, once again geared toward
Americans, addressing notions that authors should call the shots.  The fact
is that authors only call the shots that legislators grant them:

Exclusive rights are not determined by authors and inventors.  They are not
determined by software or hardware.  They are not determined by private
contracts and licenses.  They are determined by Congress, who have the power
to grant or deny exclusive rights in accordance with the purpose of the
exclusive rights clause and within other more fundamental constraints in the
Constitution.


> The really insidious tactic consists not so much in claiming that some
> kind of property-like right could exist, but in lumping everything from
> trademark to patents together under it.

Yes.  But remember that the point is not so much that property is not good,
but rather that information as such is of a different character entirely.


> This latter use of "IP" or "IPR" is rather new.
> Until recently, "intellectual property" referred to copyright, and most of
> the others were called "industrial property".
> 
> > . . . Okay, I just scanned that page at your URL (text pasted below sans
> > internal links), and my reaction is generally, I think you have pages upon
> > pages of useful information and references on the swpat.ffii site.  What
> > leaps out at me is that after that analysis goes on (and I believe after a
> > certain point, you get a pretty good idea what the key points are), the next
> > step is to convert to simple headline pitches for action.
> 
> Indeed.
> 
> This text (http://swpat.ffii.org/papers/eubsa-swpat0202/tech/) is mainly
> needed to put information at the fingertips of a few dozen people who are
> standing at the forefront of efforts to debunk misleading arguments.  From
> various discussions and questions sent to me it appeared that this kind of
> education effort is necessary.   When you have a few dozen more informed
> people, it becomes easier to develop headline pitches for action.
> 
> --
> Hartmut Pilch, FFII & Eurolinux Alliance              tel. +49-89-18979927
> Protecting Innovation against Patent Inflation       http://swpat.ffii.org/
> 155,000 votes 2000 firms against software patents    http://noepatents.org/

-- 

DRM is Theft!  We are the Stakeholders!

New Yorkers for Fair Use
http://www.nyfairuse.org

[CC] Counter-copyright: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/cc/cc.html

I reserve no rights restricting copying, modification or distribution of
this incidentally recorded communication.  Original authorship should be
attributed reasonably, but only so far as such an expectation might hold for
usual practice in ordinary social discourse to which one holds no claim of
exclusive rights.