Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Pastimes : Neocon's Seminar Thread -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: gao seng who wrote (513)	5/9/2001 9:54:19 AM
From: gao seng	Respond to of 1112

Not that I have anything against art! news.yahoo.com

To: gao seng who wrote (513)	5/9/2001 11:29:01 AM
From: Neocon	Respond to of 1112

Patronage has been varied. Markets vary. In Italy, the church, from the lowly parish church to the Vatican, paid for a lot of the art. Also, the nobility paid for a lot, sometimes out of private reserves, sometimes out of public monies to adorn public spaces. In 17th century Holland, the market was upper middle class, and modestly affluent people bought scenes depicting their lives and interests, or contributed to church art, and had themselves painted into the display. The only sense in which it is freeware is that in public spaces, including churches and museums, it was available to emulate. Still, there was a concern with at least having something from the master's workshop, under his supervision, and with distinguishing masterworks from forgeries. Anyway, the question is, is the patent system wrong? It grants a limited monopoly to the inventor or his sponsor, after which the invention becomes public domain, in order to permit competition and improvement (without prior licensing). The rationale is that, on the one hand, investment in research and development would diminish without the prospect of a reward for being first out of the box; and, on the other hand, that perpetuating a monopoly would inhibit progress, and, after all, most invention could be arrived at independently, so why pay someone for being first forever? This seems to me to be the correct model. Fix a reasonable term of patent for source codes, and, after that, make them public domain........