[UFO Chicago] Intellectual property

[The Archduke of Chicago and Subjugator of Michigan]

Just now Neil R. Ormos made 15 LEDs in my apartment flash with this:
[snippety doo daa]
>
> I'm not aware of the addition or substraction of any
> particular law, directed at the buggy whip industry, which
> was responsible for the destruction of that industry.

Well then, let me ask you this:

Are you aware of any laws that are buttressing the continued
profitability of any business models in contemporary industries which
would otherwise face extinction as we know them?

> 
> > If we attempt to legislate business models in order to
> > preserve existing ones, that is most certainly not
> > capitalism.
> 
> You haven't identified a particular law which you have
> claimed preserves existing business models.

Identifying such a law is not deemed necessary, since knowledge of such
laws is quite ubiquitous among certain cliques, UFO being one such
clique.  Identifying the law(s) relevant to this discussion which meet
the criterea that they preserve existing business models is left as an
exercise to the reader.

> However, the general notion that "legislating business models in order
> to preserve existing ones" ... "is most certainly not capitalism"
> seems inconsistent with reality.  Laws preserving business models
> create the environment in which capital can reliably be invested and
> exchanged.  In many ways, these laws are essential to the stable
> operation and liquidity of markets that are the hallmarks of
> capitalism.

Laws are not for the benefit of businesses, business models, the market
or capitalism.  Laws are for the benefit of the common good.  Let's keep
our eyes on the ball, m'kay?

> 
> Apparently, "legistlating business models" is one way of preserving
> expectations.
> 
> > Some might argue that it is socialism, but it would be socialism
> > only for businesses.  So then we would have socialism for
> > corporations but capitalism for individuals?  That is hardly a fair,
> > equitable, or stable way to structure a society.
>  
> > Besides, most people already attempt to to instantaneously extract
> > maximum value from all assets, that's why CD prices are as high as
> > they are.  That's the basis behind "what the market will bear",
> > another cornerstone of strict capitalism.
> 
> Well, that's obviously wrong, or there would be no investment in R&D
> and no investment in manufacturing equipment and processes.

Necessity is the mother of invention.  Profit is the perverted uncle who
molested it as a child.

Research and development predate intellectual property.  One might argue
that intellectual property law has quickened the pace of R&D, to which
I'll preemptively respond: history furnishes us with at least two time
periods during which learning flourished and the common standard of
living increased just as quickly, but without the use of intellectual
property.  Identifying one such period is left as an exercise to the
reader.

> 
> >>> This completely bastardizes the concept of Copyright and Patents
> >>> from being *only* to provide the possibility of financial gain as
> >>> an incentive to create into something of a birthright.
> 
> >> But from what authority is this concept derived?
> 
> >> Even if Congress' were limited in creating copyright and patent
> >> rights to the justification language in the Constitutional grant
> >> ("[t]o promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing
> >> for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to
> >> their respective writings and discoveries;"), that language is
> >> conveniently silent about "the possibility of financial gain as an
> >> incentive", and does not define what "progress" and "limited times"
> >> mean.  Thus, it would seem Congress has a lot of latitude in
> >> creating a birthright, as long as it's not perpetual.
> 
> > But the definition of perpetual is equally subject to
> > interpretation.  Is "70 years after the death of the author"
> > sufficiently perpetual, if the author was 15 at the time of the
> > grant?  What if the author is a corporate entity, in which case it
> > may never die?  Would "200 years" still be a limited time?  300?
> > 1000?  At what point does a period of time become "sufficiently
> > perpetual"?
> 
> When Congress says it does.  Perhaps when a court says it does.
> 
> Note that I'm not arguing that Congress' current balance between the
> rights of Copyright owners and the rights of various users is
> particularly provident, but rather that the balance does not appear to
> be indefensible under the U.S. Constitution or under reasonable
> theories of natural law.

We've already heard what you have to say on the subject of what is
"natural".  Thank you.  Try again.

> 
> > I do not purport to have an answer to that question, that is
> > something generally left to the courts.  (For better or worse.)
>  
> >> Moreover, copyright was available to authors under English common
> >> law.  There are those who argue that the grant clause in the U.S.
> >> constitution was merely an indication that authority over this
> >> regulatory area was to be allocated to the National government, not
> >> to the several states, and thus the grant language was inclusive
> >> but not exclusive or limiting.
>  
> > The question of inclusive vs. exclusive grants of power to the
> > Federal government is as old as the Constitution itself, and far
> > beyond the scope of this debate.  I would, however, simply mention
> > that there are fairly few places where a power is granted or
> > restricted where a reason is given.  I can only think of two off the
> > top of my head, this clause and the 2nd Amendment.  ("A
> > well-regulated militia, being necessary to the survival of a free
> > state...")  That would seem to imply that is worth bearing in mind
> > in any and all discussion therein.
> 
> Even were the language interpreted as limiting, it is unclear that any
> court would consider the current copyright term as beyond the scope of
> the grant.

Try the court of public opinion, which is precisely where this
particular issue will be judged.

-Nate

-- 
--< ((\))< >----< inkblot@movealong.org >----< http://www.movealong.org/ >--
pub  1024D/05A058E0 2002-03-07 Nate Riffe (06-Mar-2002) <inkblot@movealong.org>
     Key fingerprint = 0DAC F5CB D182 3165 D757  C466 CD42 12A8 05A0 58E0