From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 30285 invoked by uid 1002); 28 Aug 2003 10:31:23 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gentoo-dev-help@gentoo.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail X-BeenThere: gentoo-dev@gentoo.org Received: (qmail 2850 invoked from network); 28 Aug 2003 10:31:23 -0000 From: Stuart Herbert To: Luke-Jr , matt@legalizefreedom.org, gentoo-dev@gentoo.org Date: Thu, 28 Aug 2003 11:29:01 +0100 User-Agent: KMail/1.5.3 References: <1062016412.3111.3.camel@biproc> <200308280244.15864.stuart@gentoo.org> <200308280410.29055.luke-jr@gentoo.org> In-Reply-To: <200308280410.29055.luke-jr@gentoo.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg=pgp-sha1; boundary="Boundary-02=_wldT/P3zGgP8sgO"; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: <200308281129.04996.stuart@gentoo.org> Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] European Patentability rules X-Archives-Salt: 6454173a-76d0-4515-8387-78126a0620fa X-Archives-Hash: 214bf6fed1793333d76df8848345f5c9 --Boundary-02=_wldT/P3zGgP8sgO Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Description: signed data Content-Disposition: inline On Thursday 28 August 2003 5:10 am, Luke-Jr wrote: > You do realize what patents are, right?=20 Yes. My question wasn't about patents (a *system* of IPR protection), but= =20 about whether or not an individual or organisation should have the *moral*= =20 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.=20 Well, that *is* how other fields of human endeavour have to work. They jus= t=20 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 f= ar > 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=20 provisions, and full disclosure (as part of any registration process!) for= =20 IPR protection. Any creditable system needs to be balanced. But to simply say that there shouldn't be any form of protection for IPR is= n't=20 a position I'm willing to agree with. Best regards, Stu =2D-=20 Stuart Herbert stuart@gentoo.o= rg Gentoo Developer http://www.gentoo.or= g/ Beta packages for download http://dev.gentoo.org/~stuart/package= s/ Come and meet me in March 2004 http://www.phparch.com/cruis= e/ GnuGP key id# F9AFC57C available from http://pgp.mit.edu Key fingerprint =3D 31FB 50D4 1F88 E227 F319 C549 0C2F 80BA F9AF C57C =2D- --Boundary-02=_wldT/P3zGgP8sgO Content-Type: application/pgp-signature Content-Description: signature -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.2.2 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQA/TdlwDC+AuvmvxXwRAu1OAJ0UNDSx5MtyKMu2/Mu5CVcBAYpbxQCgsnXn 8j5fBxwjWhDImq5GRBu4slY= =Z9j4 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --Boundary-02=_wldT/P3zGgP8sgO--