Tresy Kilbourne wrote:

>How is the product not entirely theirs to sell? Because of your prior
>argument that society, as provider of the infrastructure that made the
>invention possible, owns the "property"? Assuming that that argument is
>valid, it is just as  true that society has made the decision to
>quitclaim title to that IP to the person who proximately created it, in
>the form of IP laws. So your argument trips over its own premises. If
>society quitclaims title to any inventions by the nominal inventor, and
>the inventor in the course of contracting with a business grants his/her
>employer rights to those inventions, that contract is just as valid as if
>I inherit land from A and sell the mineral rights under that land to B.
>
>Even if you reject my argument above,

I KNEW it would be a mistake to tangle with you! It might be wiser to admit
defeat, but here goes.  Society has CERTAINLY consented (I don't admit to
society making the decision) to assign the rights to individuals, who have
(under some coercion I maintain) consented to assign those rights to their
corporate masters. However my argument is mere quibbling, you are
essentially right, and therefor I am essentially wrong.

The reason you are right is of course that, in a capitalist economy, that
is the only sensible and workable arrangement. You can't have one group of
workers retaining ownership of what they produce, there would be no capital
investment in any industry if capitalists could not exploit their
workforce.

>the injured party under your
>argument is society, not the employee, since by the terms of your own
>argument (as I understand it), society owns the IP. In legal parlance,
>the employee would lack standing to complain. But society is not going to
>step in, because, again, the social policy decision has been made that
>the matter is one between employer and employee.

That is the point of course, we can't have it both ways. If we want
capitalism, we have to expect capitalist relations in production. Most
people consent to capitalism too.
>
>In any event it's a strange argument that allows any individual to claim
>a grievance on behalf of society irrespective of what society has said
>about the matter. Under your argument, after the contract is flouted
>would the benefits of the IP revert to the employee, or society?

Society. Yep that is REALLY silly now I think about it - capital is SURE to
want to invest in research only to have the benefits used for the good of
society. I only meant to say (and I guess my argument which you showed to
be flawed was a justification) that I personally don't feel obligated to
obey the laws relating to Intellectual Property. That is I ignore
copyright, especially in relation to software. But don't feel bad, needless
to say I will find some other self-serving justification for this behaviour
now that you have undermined that one.

Bill Bartlett
Bracknell Tas.