From: Harvey Newstrom (mail@HarveyNewstrom.com)
Date: Sun Jun 09 2002 - 12:09:56 MDT
On Saturday, June 8, 2002, at 08:49 pm, Dossy wrote:
> On 2002.06.08, Harvey Newstrom <mail@HarveyNewstrom.com> wrote:
>>
>> That is how the game used to be played. Extropians can change the
>> rules. We can devise a way that everybody can choose to win without
>> sabotaging other players.
>
> Do you consider owning and limiting the use of intellectual property
> to be an extropian activity?
Only when it promotes competition and advances the state of the art.
This increases extropy, and is therefore extropian. However, using
lawsuits to suppress competition in preference to trying to advance the
state of the art or compete fairly in the marketplace is unextropian.
This does not advance the state of the art. Extropians believe in the
free market and competition in the hopes that it will drive all parties
to excel. Trying to suppress competitors rather than improving one's
self is not extropian.
> If others can benefit from the technology you possess, then in
> order for everybody to win, shouldn't you share it freely with
> everyone?
Yes, it should be shared or distributed. Maybe not "freely", maybe for
a price. Patenting processes to prevent their use seems unextropian.
It is the suppression of knowledge and the prevention of advancement.
Patenting processes to make money and thereby market a better product
does seem extropian. It is the promotion of advancement. It does not
restrict use, but seeks widespread use while rewarding the inventor for
that use.
> Until Extropians figure out a way to change the rules regarding
> money, I think you're merely talking in ideals which might be
> nice lofty goals, but not valuable to the people who are living
> now.
I am talking about capitalism and the free market, which should be
available to help everyone now. Related topics would be freedom,
democracy, and open societies which also should be available to help
everyone now. Since when do extropians give up on lofty ideas because
it can't be done?
> At one point, the game involved merely life and death. Then it
> became more "civilized" and involved mate ownership. Then, it
> became more civilized and became fiefdom. Now, it's even more
> civilized and it involves the accumulation of money.
Agreed. The game has advanced where we don't need to kill each other to
win. I am for accumulating more money. I am against sabotaging a
competitor so they make less money. I am for making a better product
that outsells in the marketplace. I am against preventing competing
products from ever reaching the marketplace. I am for increasing choice
in the marketplace and letting the people decide for themselves what
they prefer. I am against decreasing choice or not allowing the people
to decide for themselves.
-- Harvey Newstrom, CISSP <www.HarveyNewstrom.com> Principal Security Consultant <www.Newstaff.com>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Nov 02 2002 - 09:14:41 MST