From: Samantha Atkins (samantha@objectent.com)
Date: Sun Jun 09 2002 - 23:47:30 MDT
Hal Finney wrote:
> Harvey writes:
>
>>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.
>>
>
> This depends on what kinds of lawsuits we are talking about. What one
> person sees as an attempt to suppress competition, another sees as
> defending his rights. Ultimtely it comes down to having laws which define
> a useful set of rights which will promote innovation and competition.
>
We are talking about the kind of lawsuits (especially in
pharmaceutical industry) that purposefully suppress competition
and attempt to artificially extend patent monopolies beyond the
already questionable current limits. There is no doubt that the
majority of this activity is not conducive to innovation and
progress. There is even less doubt that a lot of people are
suffering serious health consequences up to and including death
as a consequence. This last is certainly unextropic.
> If you have such laws, then you should support lawsuits even when they
> are used to suppress competition. If someone has some property which
> is being infringed on by someone else, they have a choice: defend their
> property rights, or ignore the infringement and seek to compete more
> vigorously so that they can win despite the disadvantage they face.
> We cannot always say that the second alternative is superior.
>
We do not have such laws and we should never place laws above
the very survival and viability of human beings. The entire
notion of what should and should not be property must be address
ed before it is even meaningful to talk about "infrigement" or
"defending" it. There is a false dichotomy above.
>
> Note that I have been careful not to distinguish here between intellectual
> and physical property. The principles are exactly the same in each case.
>
As the entire question of what is and is not "property" or is
more beneificial as part of a commons is exemplifed at least on
part on the differences between intellectual and physical
domains, it is obviously incorrect to conclude the principles
are exactly the same. What the principles are based upon in
these different categories is itself not nailed down.
- samantha
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Nov 02 2002 - 09:14:42 MST