Newsgroups: trial.misc.legal.software
Path: utzoo!utgpu!watserv1!maytag!looking!brad
From: brad@looking.on.ca (Brad Templeton)
Subject: Re: Intellectual Property
Organization: Looking Glass Software Ltd.
Date: Sat, 11 Aug 90 04:06:32 GMT
Message-ID: <1990Aug11.040632.21692@looking.on.ca>
References: <80565@aerospace.AERO.ORG> <1990Aug10.043721.2081@looking.on.ca> <80636@aerospace.AERO.ORG>

Well, often when it comes to primative philosophical elements like this,
things are reduced to merely what people like.

But not entirely.  It is largely a matter of personal choice when one
decides what basic philosophy should underlie the law.  But it can still
be debated to a degree.

I have suggested that the basis for property should be, in the simplest
terms, "I created/built/made it, it is mine."   This is then tempered by
the expediencies of trying to make a legal system.

I believe this is largely the way our legal system works.  By and large
creation *is* the source of property in our society.  (Things like "first
use" of real estate also exist, but they are more arbitrary.)

The exceptions to the rule that the law defines usually come from areas
that are either new (in the case of software law, for example) or
just plain hard to define.  (in the case of software law, for example :-)

"Hard to define" comes up in particular when there is conflict.  This
conflict comes from the fact that two people can easily *posess* a piece
of I.P., while only one is the creator.  Even worse, *both* can be the
creator.   If everybody were honest and true, this would not be a problem.
But ... the real world isn't that way.

So while you can come up with reasons why IP doesn't qualify for the
same status, I am open to hearing what other people feel is the simple
basis of property.   In particular, show me a basis for property that
excludes IP for physical reasons, rather than the difficulty of
definition described above.   "I don't thing somebody should own something
you do in your head" is not enough.  (Well, it's enough, but it can't be
used in debate.)
-- 
Brad Templeton, ClariNet Communications Corp. -- Waterloo, Ontario 519/884-7473
