Europe's software patent war ignites again

TalkBack 10 of 34:

Next »

« Previous

• Thread View
• Flat View

Anton: Yes, and property is...

...whatever the state says it is, or so says John Carroll. According to that interpretation, which I wholeheartedly reject, the state can create whatever classes of "property" it cares to, but in doing so, it does have to be concerned with the impact on society (as John himself freely admits).

My own interpretation is that it's convenient to call franchise monopolies "property" because it's a lot easier to get people worked up over copyright infringement if you can equate downloading a movie illegally with stealing a car. Don't know the history of patents and copyrights in Europe, but in the US, they were introduced as a means of encouraging creative activity (the US Constitution authorizes Congress to grant authors and inventors exclusive control over their own creations for a limited period of time), and *not* as a form of property protection (otherwise, perpetuity would have made a lot more sense).

I very much believe it to be the duty of the state to protect property, narrowly defined (ie. physical objects, and maybe land) and to provide reasonable means for holders of legal monopolies like copyrights and patents to enforce their contracts with the state (that's really all so-called intellectual property is) consistant with the public interest. I don't believe that control of one's own ideas is a fundamental right that the state is oblighed to protect at all costs, but rather something the state can grant at it's discretion if it is judged to be in the public interest. This was the position of the framers of the US Constitution and has been a rather common position among European statesmen over the last 250 years or so.

It may well be in the public interest to grant software patents (I don't think it is, but I'm just a programmer), but if it is, property protection per se is not the reason, nor is protecting the interests of economic "winners" who are quite capable of looking after their own interests without extraordinary help from the state; if it is to be done at all, it is to be done to encourage new inventions and for no other reason. If this action is to be taken, it needs to be done in the open, in accordance with traditional legislative procedures (including meaningful debate), rather than by judicial or administrative fiat, allowing elected officials to dodge responsibility for making policy.

This brings the discussion full circle and I'm not terribly motivated to continue it further.

Posted by: John L. Ries   Posted on: 09/22/06 You are currently: a Guest | Members login | Terms of Use

Alert moderator to an offensive message

Subscribe to this discussion via Email or RSS

SponsoredWhite Papers, Webcasts, and Downloads

• Open Standards Technologies Provide the Ingredients for Delivering Security Across the Papa Gino's Enterprise Dell Papa Gino's Holdings Corporation founded by the entrepreneur operates one ... Download Now
• Five Steps to Determine When to Virtualize YourServers VMware Server virtualization isn't just for big companies. Entry-level ... Download Now
• Three Steps You Need to Know to Stop Data Loss Varonis Sensitive data exposed to misuse or loss... it is the stuff of nightmares ... Download Now