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

[Russell McOrmond <russell@flora.ca>]

On Sun, 27 Jul 2003, Seth Johnson wrote:

> It doesn't really matter.  Greg-Bot proposes to apply physical theories to
> information as an impertinent rebuttal to his own characterization of my
> position.

  I also don't see how information being physical helps his
pro-protectionism case.  If there is a physical manifestation of
information in my brain when I learn something, isn't legislated limiting
my personal use of that information a form of assault?

  I simply don't see how the physics of knowledge applies to the public
policy of how to manage the unique nature of knowledge.  Regardless of
whether it is physical or not, it is naturally free/libre and
non-rivalrous since it can exist in multiple places at the same time.  It 
is only public policy that is putting these limits on them, creating 
legislated rivalry.  Such legislation must serve a useful public policy 
purpose or has no reason for being there.

  While I appreciate Greg's statistics on patent quality, which in itself 
is a useful argument against information process patents, I don't see how 
his philosophical ramblings about physics is relevant to the conversation 
at all.

---
 Russell McOrmond, Internet Consultant: <http://www.flora.ca/> 
 At Ottawa Linux Symposium: July 23rd-26th
 http://www.linuxsymposium.org/2003/view_abstract.php?talk=193
 Hosting "Birds of a Feather" for http://www.goslingcommunity.org