From: Michael Lorrey (retroman@tpk.net)
Date: Fri Mar 21 1997 - 19:35:17 MST
Lee Daniel Crocker wrote:
>
> > It would be great if you could offer a model or some evidence/background
> > to back up these facts.
>
> Not sure what you mean by "model", but facts I can give you (after dinner).
>
> > Not. If you breach a contract you have Contract remedies available to
> > you, not those from tort law. Fraud is enforceable in Tort.
>
> Caught me. Been a while since I read up on contract law. I believe
> the term is "equitable relief"?
>
> > Good point, but you still havn't expressed how IP would be protected
> > otherwise.
>
> I have many times, here and elsewhere, but I will again. After dinner,
> I promise.
>
> > What? You're way off buddy. Real property is protected in an identical
> > fashion. Deeds are your claim to a piece of real property - granted by
> > the government. Patents/copyrights are your claim/title to a piece of
> > IP. Where's the distinction?
>
> As a libertarian, I reject the idea that property is a whim of the state,
> but rather we may freely choose whatever private means of enforcing our
> claim to our property we find satisfactory. But even if we do give that
> privelege to the state, there is a fundamental, inescapable objective
> difference between physical property and IP: physical property /cannot/
> be used to serve the ends of two people at the same time. IP can be.
> A copy of knowledge is exactly the same as the original. I do not lose
> knowledge when I give it to you. If I don't want you to use knowledge
> to compete with me, I should keep my mouth shut, not give it and then
> shackle your use of it.
Its odd that you and I can agree here but have different views on
intellectual property. What I am proposing is that intellectual property
be fully recognized as a basic human right (part of the natural law
thing), possibly THE basic human right, and that patents, copyrights,
trademarks etc are merely government recognition of individuals
exercising these rights in acts of creation.
In this manner, one's DNA is considered wholly the property of the
individual that originated from them. Twins would be joint owners, and
clones would have a sort of dual parent/twin sibling relationship,
differentiated by the ages of each individual. By bundling up all these
essential human rights as one interrelated concept of the individual, an
attack on one is seen as an attack on the whole, as opposed to today's
political scene of pick and choose human rights. Liberals like
expression, choice etc for the individual, and everything else for the
state, and conservatives like self protection, life, and property for
the individual and everything else for the state. Very little is seen as
a holistic concept.
>
--
TANSTAAFL!!!
Michael Lorrey
------------------------------------------------------------
President retroman@tpk.net
Northstar Technologies Agent Lorrey@ThePentagon.com
Inventor of the Lorrey Drive Silo_1013@ThePentagon.com
Website: http://www.tpk.net/~retroman/
Now Featuring:
Mikey's Animatronic Factory
http://www.tpk.net/~retroman/animations.htm
My Own Nuclear Espionage Agency (MONEA)
MIKEYMAS(tm): The New Internet Holiday
Transhumans of New Hampshire (>HNH)
------------------------------------------------------------
Transhumanist, Inventor, Webmaster, Ski Guide, Entrepreneur,
Artist, Outdoorsman, Libertarian, Arms Exporter-see below.
------------------------------------------------------------
#!/usr/local/bin/perl-0777---export-a-crypto-system-sig-RC4-3-lines-PERL
@k=unpack('C*',pack('H*',shift));for(@t=@s=0..255){$y=($k[$_%@k]+$s[$x=$_
]+$y)%256;&S}$x=$y=0;for(unpack('C*',<>)){$x++;$y=($s[$x%=256]+$y)%256;
&S;print pack(C,$_^=$s[($s[$x]+$s[$y])%256])}sub S{@s[$x,$y]=@s[$y,$x]}
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Nov 01 2002 - 14:44:17 MST