You, Peter D. Junger, wrote:

>``Property''
>refers to interests in land and in tangible goods and chattels and it
>loses what little analytical usefulness it has---which is not
>much---if it is applied to other interests such as those created by
>contract or by the grant of a government created monopoly like a patent
>or a copyright.
Interesting. How so? There is no meaningful way to buy or sell land
unless there is a recognized, enforceable right to exclude others from
the property you purport to "own" (or want to own); similarly,
intellectual product becomes "property" when it is given protection from
appropriation by others, at which point, it, too, can be bought, sold,
licenced, just as any other commodity can. In both cases "property"
describes a legally enforceable superiority of right of the "owner" over
others. So what's the problem?

To be sure, there are differences between IP and other kinds. That's why
there is a specialized branch of law dealing with it. The valid question,
to me, is not whether IP laws are necessary in the abstract--they clearly
are--but whether the form they take accomplishes what we expect laws to
do in general, namely, reflect a defensible concept of the just
distribution of resources and power in society. Mr. Brayton makes some
intriguing claims in one direction; the "Myths" piece hints at some
alleged injustices in another; I freely admit that current IP laws work
occasional injustice in the area of pharmaceuticals. But overall they
clearly serve two legitimate interests: that of the individual to the
fruit of his/her creative labors, and that of society in ongoing
technical and artistic innovation.

PS Since you denigrate the concept of property generally, what would you
propose as a superior concept?

_________________
Walter Kilbourne
Seattle WA