🚀 go-pugleaf

rockwell@socrates.umd.edu (Raul Rockwell) writes:

>Joe Buck:
>   >For the third time, here is the relevant passage, from Article I,
>   >section 8:

>   >  The Congress shall have Power ...  To 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;

>   >Note the following:

>David A Keldsen:
>   The reason given IN THAT PASSAGE is as you say.  However, that is
>   not the only relevant passage.

>      5th Amendment: No person shall be ...  deprived of life,
>      liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall
>      private property be taken for public use, without just
>      compensation.

>Um... since when are thoughts "property"?  It seems to me that patents
>deprive everyone, except the person who files them, a certain amount
>of liberty.

Patents are not on thoughts.  Copyrights are not on thoughts.  These
protections are on the expression of thoughts.  The protection is on
"their respective Writings and Discoveries."  "Their" is a pretty clear
way of saying "property" isn't it?

Since one of the alternatives is not to publish at all, the point of
patents is to assure inventors that they still can have the fruits of
their labors, while displaying the techniques involved so that they
are not lost, and so that they revert to the public domain after some
period of time.

Even with patents, this still happens.

>In other words, what's the point, here?  Are patents somehow justified
>because people will die without them?

Try looking up "patent" in a dictionary.  I think you are just seeing
one side of the issue (IMHO).

Regards,
Dak
-- 
David A. 'Dak' Keldsen of SoftQuad, Inc. email: dak@sq.com  phone: 416-239-4801
"If people think nature is their friend, then they sure don't need an enemy."
         -- Kurt Vonnegut