| Who we are | Organizations | Get Involved! | Helpdesk |
| Weblog | About FLORA | Server project | F.A.Q. |
|
|
|||||||
| ||||||||
Election 2006 (and beyond): Digital Copyright Canada
From: russell_-at-_flora.ottawa.on.ca
Date: 4 Feb 1999 12:35:45 -0500
References: <199902031816.NAA13644@striker.ottawa.on.ca>
On Wed, 3 Feb 1999, Paul J.Y. Lahaie wrote: > One of the things that I oppose in the current patent system is > the patent of already published material (ie. the RSA algorithm, > etc..). This is completely defeating the purpose of the patent. The > idea of the patent is to protect a secret that the company gives out. After discussing things with MCR for a fair bit last night, it seems that there is a believe that regardless of what your beliefs are about Information Ownership, that the patent system isn't likely going to be rejected any time soon. So I guess this leads us into a the logical thread of "reforming the system" as everyone does seem to agree that the current system has flaws (Whether one believes they are fundamental or minor is where we'll have to agree to disagree). Paul wrote to me elsewhere: > The current patent system needs tuning. I don't think it's the > greatest, but that the IDEA behind it isn't bad. The idea of the > patent is to promote sharing. Unfortunately, high-price lawyers have > corrupted a good idea into a greed feeding zone. Is the idea behind it "Giving someone exclusive access to something for a period of time"? Or is the idea "Allowing someone to own something". The two may sound the same, but their not. One has the cultural assumption that it's a priveledge granted to them by the community, for which they have some responsibility back to that community (Stewardship, etc). The other is that 'Mine, Mine, Mine - it's mine unless I tell you otherwise' attitude associated with the 'Rights of Ownership'. Read some of the previous messages in this thread with the 'Mine, Mine, Mine' attitude in it and you'll understand why I'm so horrified by it. I reject the concepts behind our current societies understanding of "Rights of Ownership", whether it be of land, animals, people or ideas. All forms of "exclusive access" has some sociatal responsibility associated with it - the pollution on your land doesn't stay on your land, your killing of an endangerd species (Whether you own the animal or not) affects the ecosystem, slavery..well..we can't even go there any more (fortunately). I also dislike (Reject?) these forms of ownership in that order, and consider the "ownership" of ideas to be a concept one worse than the ownership of people. My conversation with MCR lead me to believe that there is some 'common ground' between the stewardship people and the ownership people when one goes to the origional purpose of patents. I believe it is the language that has cause the current corruption. Paul wrote in reply to my pointer to the paper "Intellectual Monopoly Rights vs True Intellectual Property <http://www.smart.net/~kaz/inframe/intprop.html> : > If a short lived "Intellectual Monopoly" on some information in > return for a future of freedom of that information vs not having that > information at all, I'll choose the "tough-it-out" for a while > situation. I believe that if the presumptions are one of "Property Rights", the corruption of the concept of "short lived" is inevidable. I think we would all agree that the time on many patents today is totally inappropriate and in the favour of the monopolist. If, on the other hand, the presumption of "stewardship" is the basis (Exclusive access granted by society with a responsibility to the society), then that corruption would not have happened. > The US patent system is fairly broken, but my understanding of the > Canadian patent system indicates it's much better structured and that > this "Bio-Piracy" would not be possible under Canadian patent law. In the House in India there is a Patent Bill (References below) to bring Indias patent system in-line with that of the WTO, which is based on the US patent model. This is being imposed on them by the WTO which has essentially said that there would be trade sanctions against India (Now that they are addicted to foreign goods and the money for the products they sell) if they don't sign on within a certain amount of time. Whether or not the Canadian patent system would protect us 'now' isn't so much an issue as whether we (as citizens of the same planet, not just as a bubble-of-Canadians) are going to be protected in the long term. We live in a globalized world where the effects of bad laws in other countries affect everyone. Are you willing to risk what I believe are the the logical outcomes of this war against the majority populations of the planet for the small-benefits that you might gain, or because of the "origional intention" of patents/copyright? I have been accused of wanting to "throw the baby out with the bathwater". I believe I'm just being a realistic survivalist opposing what I see to be a very dangerous system. ---cut--- Patents bill References (A quick search on the net trying to show it from all sides of the issue including from the U.S. ;-). It was an issue written about every day when I was in India in December. While this gives a few angles, most of what I read in the local papers opposed Patents in a similar way to how I do. http://www.wsws.org/articles/1999/jan1999/ind-j14.shtml http://www.redifindia.com/business/1998/sep/17wto.htm http://www.usia.gov/regional/nea/sasia/ustr/india.htm#C http://www.indiaonestop.com/markets-intellectual-prop-rights.htm And of course a primer on this issue from one of those people that elicit even more interesting comments than those generated by RMS ;-) (And yes, someone else who I tend to agree with) http://www.cptech.org/pharm/noam.html "Patents are protectionist devices. They are designed to insure that the technology of the future is in the hands of transnational corporations, most of which, incidentally, you guys pay for. Remember they don't believe in a free market. They want to be publicly subsidized in research and development and controlled markets and so on. The strength of intellectual property rights means longer patents. ... They want more children to die in India. It's not whether they care whether children die. They want more profit, which means more children die in India. --- Russell McOrmond, Internet Consultant: <http://russell.flora.org/work/> Thoughts about India, Business including Netshooter project Happy Republic Day, India/Linux! http://russell.flora.org/india/
| Please read the FLORA.org Terms and Conditions before you submit information to FLORA.org | |
Join the Blue Ribbon Online Free Speech Campaign(USA) (Canada) |
 FLORA Community Web
(FLORA.ORG) is sponsored by FLORA
Community Consulting (FLORA.CA).
|