On Sat, 15 Apr 2000, Gary Jeffers wrote:
> What the 2 men did was a PERCEPTUAL crime. This crime is 100%
> imaginary! However, the crime the U.S. will commit will be real.
> INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY IS A STATE ARTIFACT! Without the state it
> would not exist as we know it.
Perhaps not. What would "intellectual property" look like without the
State?
If I know a special process for making widgets, and I keep it secret in
my head, then does that qualify for some sense of "intellectual property"?
It seems like it to me; the process has some value, it allows me to do
something I otherwise could not (ie make widgets), and it may be called
"intellectual" since it's only in my head. Extracting the process from my
head by force then seems analagous to theft.
The meaning of "intellectual property" seems broader these days, though,
in that I can publish my process and then legally require others to
refrain from using it without my permission by means of a patent. That
legal requirement is where the State comes in for us now. Is this what
you're getting at with "intellectual property is a state artifact" ?
What happens in a world along the lines of Vinge's "The Ungoverned", in
which legal codes are enforced by private organizations, and contracts
are available? Can I create something like today's notion of
"intellectual property" by making up the right kinds of contracts and
not disclosing my process until these contracts are signed? If I can, are
these contracts valid? If this model is at all legitimate, how does it
differ from what we have now?
On first pass, it seems to me that in this model, I can only really
sanction someone who's actually signed a contract with me. If she gives
away knowledge of my process to someone else, then I can't touch the
someone else. A consequence of this seems to be that there can be no IBM
patent server -- at least not without all the users
first signing a contract to refrain from disclosing or using w/o
permission the processes contained on the server.
Thanks,
-David
