Re: [Patents] Greenspan on property

["Alex Macfie" <alex@cgce.net>]

On Sat, 5 Apr 2003 09:37:03 +0200 (CEST), PILCH Hartmut 
<phm@a2e.de> wrote :


> If there's something wrong with this question then perhaps the 
underlying
> assumption that market economy (exchange of private values) as 
known from
> the material world must be transferred to the immaterial world and 
that
> some kind of property system must be created in order to fit the
> immaterial into the procrustean bed of an economic order based on 
the
> material.
> 
> Fortunately we do not really need to bring this possibility into the
> discussion in order to refute the patent nonsense.  Otherwise we'd
> probably be branded as 'communists' very quickly.  

Which is, of course, McCarthyite (meaning Joe not Arlene). But 
communism means centralized state control of ideas as well as 
everything else, whereas we are arguing for ideas to be freely 
available --- the antithesis of communism. In fact it is supporters of 
unlimited patentability who are the more communist, because they are 
arguing that the powers of a state bureaucracy be extended to cover 
ideas in new fields.

It does need to be said loud and clear that the concept of property 
was designed to determine control over finite and discrete resources 
such as land and material objects, and cannot be sensibly applied to 
things which are infinite and ephemeral, like ideas and creative works. 
To any accusations of "communism" one need simply point to the state 
bureaucracy needed to enforce "intellectual property" rights and ask 
who's more communist-like.

> So for the current
> context Greenspan's question is sufficient.

For now, but there is a need to change underlying thinking. Many 
people, I think, tend to have the idea of "intellectual property" in the 
back of their minds when discussing these issues, and need to learn to 
think past it.

Alex