Re: Re: Notes on a talk I will give on Wed.

[JKSCHW@xxxxxxx]

In a message dated Mon, 3 Apr 2000  1:53:34 PM Eastern Daylight Time, Michael Perelman <michael@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:

<< Perhaps you expect too much.

The history is interesting, and no doubt the extent to which ideas are treated as property varies withthe political winds, like everything else.

> Oh, yeah? Let me introduce you to some patent lawyers I know. The standards are no fuzzier than those that establish property rights in real estate or tangible personal property.

> Oh, but they are.  I covered this in my Class Warfare in the Information Age book.  They certainly are fuzzy and billions of dollars are being expended in litigating this stuff.
>

I didn't say they were not fuzzy, just that they were not fuzzier than a lot of law. Billions of dollars may be spent on litigation, but billions are also spend on litigating contracts and for that matter, in state court, plain old tangible property claims.

> So, if I am informed that Microsoft has a program that will do, which I want to do, I own the program?

>No.  You do not own the program.  You have a license to use it.  Just as farmers do not own Monsanto seeds.  They have a license to use it.

I am not expressing myself clearly. I only have a license if I buy a license. But I do not need to have ownership or a license or knowledge of how Microsoft's program does what I want, and the "how" is the property, to know _that_ MS has a program that somehow or another does what I want.

--jks