On Thursday 28 August 2003 5:10 am, Luke-Jr wrote:
> You do realize what patents are, right? 

Yes.  My question wasn't about patents (a *system* of IPR protection), but 
about whether or not an individual or organisation should have the *moral* 
right to protect and earn revenue from their IPR.

> This would be like saying just
> because HP invented remote access first, noone else can invent it
> independantly. 

Well, that *is* how other fields of human endeavour have to work.  They just 
seem to have found a more balanced way to dealing with it.

> Even if someone does invent something, they should only have
> exclusive right to use it for 10 years, and only if they tell others how to
> create it. I don't see how you could believe anything else (at least as far
> as the patents are concerned) is morally acceptable, let alone see the
> other view as immoral. --

I agree that their needs to be time and scope limitations, acceptable fair-use 
provisions, and full disclosure (as part of any registration process!) for 
IPR protection.  Any creditable system needs to be balanced.

But to simply say that there shouldn't be any form of protection for IPR isn't 
a position I'm willing to agree with.

Best regards,
Stu
-- 
Stuart Herbert                                              stuart@gentoo.org
Gentoo Developer                                       http://www.gentoo.org/
Beta packages for download            http://dev.gentoo.org/~stuart/packages/
Come and meet me in March 2004                 http://www.phparch.com/cruise/

GnuGP key id# F9AFC57C available from http://pgp.mit.edu
Key fingerprint = 31FB 50D4 1F88 E227 F319  C549 0C2F 80BA F9AF C57C
--