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.

Politics : The Castle -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: MSI who wrote (999)	1/18/2003 10:04:52 PM
From: i-node	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 7936

Contrary to common belief, gov't protections for copyright and patents are not for the benefit of the inventor, commercializing interests, or heirs, but specifically designed to benefit the country and citizenry at large. Copyright and patent law are designed to benefit both the public interest and that of the artist/investor/author whatever -- but the stated Constitutional reference was, in fact, oriented toward the public purpose. However, I think you will find common law roots to both patent and copyright law that are oriented more toward the equity of developer/owner. It is the corps who lobby for unlimited ownership rights to intellectual property, depriving the initial Act of its purpose. The Constitution's specific intent was to "promote scientific progress and the useful arts". However, it is important for amateurs not to read too much into this; Constitutional scholars could undoubtedly write volumes interpreting a simple passage like this. One of the big mistakes people make is to take the Constitution, or for that matter, the US Code, too literally. The devil is in the details, and both are notably short on details. Back to your original remark, however, I don't know that the "corps" interests' are at odds with the Constitutional intent, and certainly don't believe they have traditionally been at odds with the public interest. It is DEFINITELY in the public interest to grant a patent, for example, on a new drug, else, no corporate would develop new drugs. This same concept holds true for almost any other patent or copyright you can think of. I'm not sure that musicians would quit developing new music were they not able to copyright it, but one could argue that issue. On the other hand, the notion of patenting and copyrighting certain elements of the human genome may have gone too far -- it may be impeding the public interest to allow these items to be locked up by a university or corporation. On the other hand, one can just as easily argue that the public interest is served by this research and the research may not be funded were there not the availability of intellectual property protection. There is no "one size fits all" answer to these issues. I tend to think we're better off letting Congress make some broad, definitional pronouncements and let the courts settle it out over the years. I think you're likely to get much fairer interpretations that way versus having some bureaucrat develop regulations under the USC and having the courts further interpret the bureaucrat's interpretation. That would be my view, anyway.