Re: "Against Intellectual Property"

Pat Sloane:

I appreciated your point about abandoned but still useful software. Of course patents do have a term that, whether reasonable or not, is far shorter than copyright. In fact, the bargain of a short-term monopoly in return for long-term dedication to the public is more explicit with patents than with copyrights.

But "dog-in-the-manager" problems abound. Sometimes it is simply that the rights holder is unwilling to devote the minimal effort required to give permission.

I am intrigued by the suggestion of an abandonment clause, such as exists for real estate and trademarks, but worry, among other issues, that very minimal use will qualify to avoid abandonment, such as blocking a roadway for a 24-hour period once per year to preserve real estate rights.

Roland J. Cole, Executive Director
SOFTWARE PATENT INSTITUTE
11 SOUTH MERIDIAN STREET
INDIANAPOLIS IN 46204-3535
317-231-7799; fax 317-231-7433
cole@spi.org; http://www.spi.org
----- Original Message -----
From: <Patsloane[_at_]aol.com>
To: "Multiple recipients of list" <cni-copyright[_at_]cni.org> Sent: Saturday, August 05, 2000 11:25 AM Subject: Re: "Against Intellectual Property"

>
> On 8/5/2000, Roland J. Cole <cole[_at_]spi.org> wrote:
> >
> > It is getting the balance right that is important -- arguing that
> > life plus 70 is too long is not the same as saying all copyright
> > is bad.
>
> Roland,
>
> Software patents are interesting in this regard. Symantec dropped
> Norton Commander for Windows, claiming it didn't sell enough
> copies. This left many people who used it heavily quite distraught,
> including, say, a scientific institute in Jerusalem. Although
> Symantec has no intention of reissuing or upgrading this product
> under any circumstances, neither will they release it to the public
> domain so that those who want to work with it can have a shot at
> adapting or upgrading it. I must say this somewhat surprise me.
> Were Symantec to turn over the patent to the scientific institute,
> I assume they'd be entitled to a substantial tax deduction for a
> charitable contribution.
>
> A similar situation occurs in book publishing, where a particular
> book can be of great importance to a small specialist audience. Yet
> the publisher drops it because it isn't of interest to a very wide
> audience, and therefore isn't a top money-maker for the publisher.
> So all those books on weight loss -- a topic that interests vast
> numbers of people -- crowd out, say, the best book of the century
> of Milton's Lycidas, which interests far fewer people. I'm not
> sure that the anti-intellectualism this fosters is really good in
> the long run.
>
> pat sloane
> <patsloane[_at_]aol.com>
>
Received on Mon Aug 07 2000 - 13:51:22 GMT