On Mon, 11 Apr 2005 17:18:06 GMT, Bob Miller
wrote:

but if we stop compensating people who
create intellectual property, it will simply stop being created.

Hi Bob,

This assertion is untested by simple virtue of the extension of
copyright, and the continued abuse of patents. Being untested does
not mean that it defaults to being true.

Insofar as left/right/liberal/conservative politics go, Ben Franklin
was very much against patenting. In his era, plagiarism was rife, but
its penalty was weighed against purpose and claims and punished in the
form of opprobrium. You were far more likely to be sued for slander
than stealing ideas. Back then, if you couldn't pay the fine, they
threw you in the slammer.

But back to the assertion, there is every proof that this is simply
not the case. One of the chief contentions that America is shipping
its software jobs east (the far east, not Jersey) is that Asians will
soon crowd the field with better programmers (or simply more, cheaper
programmers) who will flood the capitalist market with their product.

Creativity being what it is, and what intellectuals do, such product
that is free and unencumbered has already washed the Asians out like a
tidal wave. I can point at one example of creativity that confounds
the monetary need for patent or copyright:
http://sourceforge.net/
where you and others may observe more than 98,000 software packages
are being offered for free (this is NOT crippleware) that are being
built by more than 1 Million designers (creative individuals). They
do ask for pledges, but this is not a condition of use.

The Chinese don't need more programmers to burn illegal copies of M$
Office, but neither do I need to fly to Shanghai to buy them. Instead
I can download Open Office for free (and certainly at less hazard to
asian infections). Do I breathlessly wait for the next iteration now
called Longhorn? That horse is so lame, M$ hasn't realized that the
field has left it behind. If a million Indian Engineers could put it
on wheels with a hemi under the hood, it still wouldn't pay their
wages in rice when it hits the market. M$ daily pays the cost for
exclusivity that eclipes copyright or patent. As far as creativity
go, copyright and patent offer abysmal return unless you are a one
note symphony composer.

The ONLY software I have ever purchased in the last 10 years was for
Agent (the newsreader I am now using to post to this forum) and
Outpost Firewall. Both items were to protect me from the third piece
of software I bought, M$ Win2K Pro which could now be easily replaced
with Linux (which I now build custom business systems on). Absolutely
every application that is mainstream can be replaced and upgraded to
for FREE.

In the spirit of compensation, not to the individual(s) who designed
Open Office, but to the community at large, I have contributed my own
Web Search Engines for FREE. My effort to produce them expended as
much time, but far less cash in my pursuit of 5 patents (ego
certificates).

If any want to argue that this is far different from Mickey Mouse
protection, I would offer that even if his copyright expired, there
would still be protection through Trade Mark, and Licensing
agreements. Really, the laws are manifestly and explicitly for
intimidation alone.

You can be sued for distributing the image of Moe Howard, but sky
through with Abraham Lincoln's mug on a T-shirt. This is not about
creativity, merit, or intellectual worth. It is simply about
government sanctioned monopoly (and again, manifestly and explicitly
so). As TR observed 100 years ago, expanded monopolies are bad for
America.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC