Re: The Basic Question: Why??

Let me try my hand at the "basic question." Begin with the premise that both copyright and patent are designed to secure to their owners the benefits of their contributions to the greater good. But in the case of patents, which apply to the technical arts, another public policy, or greater good, comes into play. That greater good is the benefit of competition in the production of the patented article. In other words, the powers that be are relatively untroubled by the prospect of an artist or author withholding his work from the public or exacting an exhorbitant price for its enjoyment. But the inventor who withholds the benefit of technical progress or exacts an unfair profit, in the judgment of the legislators, should not be countenanced, at least not for very long. This may say something about the relative value our society assigns to the technical versus the "fine" arts, and it may be that you disagree with what it is that it says. Still, its true, generally, that competition in the production of "copies" of a creative work is of little moment, while competition in the production of "useful articles" is central premise of our economy, like it or not.Of course, the "logic" of the discrepancy breaks down when, and to the extent, that the copyrighted work is also a "useful article." Witness, the controversy peculiar to software copyrights.

--


                             <>

    John F. Noble            <>   jnoble01[_at_]gumedlib.dml.georgetown.edu
    Editor                   <>
    Computer Law Reporter    <>   202.625.2245  P.O.32230/WDC/20007


                             <>