----------
> From: Tresy Kilbourne <[log in to unmask]>
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: [CHOMSKY] Intellectual "property"
> Date: Friday, May 30, 1997 1:25 PM
>
> You, Bill Bartlett, wrote:
>
> >As an admirer of your thoughtful comments in this forum I would
appreciate
> >some persuasive arguments in support of "intellectual property".
> Your arguments against the form that IP laws take is familiar to me, and
> I am sympathetic to them in many cases. Case in point, which you may have
> had in mind: pharmaceutical companies that patent drugs based on native
> plants used by Third World cultures. The TW argues that the companies owe
> the profitability of their drugs to the "research" of the cultures that
> discovered and used the drugs, and therefore should share in the profits.
> Also, by patenting the drugs made from these plants, the companies
> effectively ruin any chance the TW has of profiting from these products
> of their own cultures. I agree with the TW: this is unfair and should be
> changed. As I said in the earlier post, patent law does not distinguish
> between inventions that require lots of R&D and those that don't, and
> there is nothing rational about that.
>
> But that objection goes to the form that IP laws take, not to their
> necessity. To restate: IP laws recognize that it's  a lot easier to copy
> an invention (or other creative product) than to invent it in the first
> place, and that society has an interest in protecting the inventor's
> investment of time and money if it is to encourage technical innovation.
> This does not mean that money is the only reason that people create of
> course. In the case of artists I think it's clear that if the likelihood
> of profit were the sole motive, very few works of art would be created.
> Still, try telling an artist that his reward is the beauty of his artwork
> and the appreciation of the public. People have a visceral sense that
> copying another's creative work is theft, no matter what the reason for
> its creation in the first place. If we are concerned about the theft of
> workers' labor under capitalism, how can we carve out an exception for
> creative labor?
>
> I also dispute the implication that IP is solely a perk of the ruling
> class. Everyone has a creative mind, even if they don't have access to
> capital. If anything, IP laws in theory cut across class lines, rather
> than reinforce existing ones. This of course doesn't mean, like
> everything else in our society, that wealth can't distort its application
> in individual cases.

It is interesting to note that most tech., drug, etc. companies require
their employees to sign off on their IP, taking the position that, since
they are providing an environment for the research, previous foundational
information, etc., etc., that the IP right;y belongs to the company. If the
US gov't were to take an honest position as a fiduciary of the people, many
of the patents presently held by these companies would belong to the people
of the US.

 _________
> Tresy Kilbourne, Seattle WA
> "Did you know there are more LESBIANS in the MEDIA--than there are on the
> pro tennis circuit???" -- Televangelist W.V. Grant

Why exactly is Grant keeping count, if that is what (s)he is doing?
Hmmmmm...