🚀 go-pugleaf

In <m3af3knl8m.fsf@c26469-a.clnvl1.ct.home.com> Decklin Foster <decklin@base.org> writes:

>> If someone has a great idea for a software product and proceeds to
>> realise that idea, his rights to that are absolutely enforcable.

So you feel that there should only be STarbucks selling coffee in any
city? Or only one laundry company? After all they had an idea and they
should therefor have the absolute right to realise that idea? 
Why should society not grant everyone monopoly rights? After all that
was how the USSR worked and we know the great success they had in
delivering cheap goods to their consumers.  Why should not Ford be
able to enforce their monopolistic right to sell cars? After all, every car that GM
sells is taking money directly out of Ford's pocket. They have lost
billions because of GM's unconscionable actions. (That is irony for
those who have trouble with taking things too literally). Why should not the
competitive model (which many in the US claim great allegiance to, at
least when it is someone elses product they want to use) be applied in
all its glory to software as to laundry? 

Both copyright and patents are monoply rights handed to people by
society. Such rights should be granted only if the return to society of
that grant outweighs the costs to society. At present, you have a bunch
of rich people subverting the law making process to increase their own monopolistic
profits without any calculation as to what society actually gains from
granting such monopolies (and also demanding that the
taxpayer assume the expense of enforcing those monopolies.)

The usual argument is that if such monopolies were not granted then
people would cease to produce things like software. But if that is the
excuse, why does free software exist? (Linux et al). And why in the
world is a 70 year monopoly granted in the case of software (the
copyright time limit). Surely a much better model would be to grant say
a 3 year monopoly, with say a further 3 years if the source code were
published. That way at least society would get something out of the
deal. Why should society not drive a hard bargain in exchange for
such monopoly rights, rather than acting as though the software
companies had the right to a monopoly? (Remember the USA went through
this whole exercise in the 19th century when the railroads managed to
persuade the governments that granting them monopolies was in the best
interests of the nation. It was finally realised that it was actually
 in the best interests of the monopoly holders and not of the society at
large.)