From: Rafal Smigrodzki (rafal@smigrodzki.org)
Date: Sun Mar 09 2003 - 15:28:08 MST
----- Original Message -----
From: "Charles Hixson" <charleshixsn@earthlink.net>
To: <extropians@extropy.org>
Sent: Friday, March 07, 2003 10:31 AM
Subject: Re: Do patents really foster innovation?
> Rafal Smigrodzki wrote:
>
> >----- Original Message -----
> >From: "Hal Finney" <hal@finney.org>
> >...
> >
> >### This is a very interesting line of thought that I have been recently
> >coming closer to. If the producer of a piece of information (be it music
or
> >knowledge embodied in a physical object) was really able to protect his
> >property while allowing wide access to it, but without having a
> >state-enforced monopoly, this might be actually better than the current
> >situation. Persons unwilling to accept the terms set out by the owner
would
> >be free to compete by coming up with comparable information on their own,
> >which would provide incentives to produce useful information, identical
to
> >the incentives in the production of other commodities. Still, not knowing
> >enough about technology, I wonder if it would be really possible to
protect
> >information ownership rights without some significant restrictions on the
> >devices used for the transmission and reading of information. How does
> >Palladium work?
> >
> This is the key question. Palladium won't exist in a vacuum. It's
> ability to work will depend on new and improved laws, e.g., laws making
> it illegal to modify hardware to circumvent it. And it will be largely
> designed by a company that has repeatedly shown a contempt for it's
> customers, ethics, and decency. And that frequently lies about it's
> products, not only before release, but afterwards. So it's going to be
> a new kind of state enforced monopoly, not get away from that concept.
> (Getting away from the concept would be worthy, but no state will give
> up controls on any monopolies that exist. The best you can hope for is
> that it might make it difficult to create new ones. The state is
> practically defined as an organization that claims a monopoly on the use
> of force.)
\
### Exactly. See my response to Hal today.
-----------------
>
> >
> >I fully agree with the initial part of your analysis, since an
appropriately
> >managed patent and copyright system IMO indeed reduces transaction costs
and
> >allows the provision of useful goods which would otherwise not be
provided.
> >
> This is correct, but the presumption "...appropriately managed..."
> assumes that those managing it have the same criteria as you do as to
> what this constitutes. For some people the current US patent system is
> "appropriately managed". And those people are the ones in control of
> the operation.
### The free market - that's the solution. See my reply to Hal.
Rafal
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sun Mar 09 2003 - 15:32:48 MST