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

[Hartmut Pilch <phm@a2e.de>]

> Be careful to consider that the lumping of things under one asset header may
> be a reflection of too much headiness about information technology, from an
> accounting and economic perspective.

[...]

> One interesting thing to me that I believe may be relevant in this
> connection has been observing that there seems to be almost no
> recognition of the public interest as something distinct from private
> interest any more. It seems to me that this has been a major factor in
> how exclusive rights policy has been articulated.

Indeed the perspective of the asset manager is more frequently taken in
today's public discourse than the perspective of moral evaluation.  Which
is one more reason why there is no way around the concept of immaterial
property or whatever we call it.

Note that I find the term "information technology" more objectionable and
harmful than "IP".  It should be "automated data processing", as it was
called in the 1970s.  But our communication can becomes quite inefficient
if we first have to rename everything.  And even more difficult if you
tell people to delete a meaningful term from their vocabulary without
replacement.

-- 
Hartmut Pilch, FFII & Eurolinux Alliance              tel. +49-89-18979927
Protecting Innovation against Patent Inflation       http://swpat.ffii.org/
160,000 votes 2000 firms against software patents    http://noepatents.org/