Re: intellectual property (Re: Totalitarian Assumptions in I, Robot)

From: Thomas Buckner (
Date: Fri Mar 04 2005 - 04:56:22 MST

--- David Picon Alvarez <>

> I sort of understand copyright. You wrote it,
> it's yours. I don't agree with
> it, but I see the point. But with patents, even
> if you arrive at an
> independent insight, you're barred from
> exercising it because someone got
> there first. So, patents are like a landgrab of
> the natural world. Granted,
> a temporary landgrab, but a landgrab
> nonetheless, from what is, in
> principle, a commons, to private hands.
> --David.
Copyright has already been extended to please
corporate lobbyists, and is now the life of the
author plus seventy years. Much that should have
been expected to pass into the public domain has
been instead deferred. Happy Birthday, written in
1893, won't be PD until 2030.
If intellectual ownership creates corrupting
levels of wealth, lobbyists and legislators can
be paid to extend it again and again. Now tell me
why this cannont happen with patents also? Maybe
even over concepts needed for FAI?

Tom Buckner

Celebrate Yahoo!'s 10th Birthday!
Yahoo! Netrospective: 100 Moments of the Web

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Jul 17 2013 - 04:00:50 MDT