W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-discuss@w3.org > April 2001

RE: MP4 Player Available for Download

From: Chiariglione Leonardo <Leonardo.Chiariglione@TILAB.COM>
Date: Sun, 01 Apr 2001 13:06:12 +0200
To: "'Keith Moore'" <moore@cs.utk.edu>
Cc: "'Rob Lanphier'" <robla@real.com>, discuss@apps.ietf.org
Message-id: <A0B9FD493F1D6647B4053E22BB1C3CB601948C19@exc2k01.cselt.it>
>the use of the word
>"property" to describe ideas and expression of ideas has led to a
widespread 
>confusion that ideas are like tangible property.  they're not.  

Regrettably this confusion has lasted for some time. Martial (a Latin poet)
was not happy 2000 years ago when he discovered that somebody had presented
as his a work by Martial. He was the one who coined the word "plagiarius".

>for one thing, 
>the laws of supply and demand that apply to tangible property do not apply
to 
"intellectual property". 

A German philosopher had the idea that there should be no property at all.
153 years ago  he published a program of work which was implemented and had
some success for some time. What about publishing a similar manifesto for
_intellectual_ property?

>quite often "intellectual property" is worth more 
>if you give it away than if you try to control it.

Right, please do so for _your own_ "intellectual property".

>holders of IPR 
>midunderstand this at their peril.

In the little country village I live there is a saying: "Don't teach cats to
climb trees"

>meanwhile, the net will treat IPR as damage and route around it. 

This is what the followers of the philosopher above did for some time with
some success (net and IPR should be properly renamed in the new context)

Leonardo Chiariglione


-----Original Message-----
From: Keith Moore [mailto:moore@cs.utk.edu]
Sent: 2001 marzo sabato 20:33
To: Chiariglione Leonardo
Cc: 'Keith Moore'; 'Rob Lanphier'; discuss@apps.ietf.org
Subject: Re: MP4 Player Available for Download


> >then the sooner the rest of the world abandons
> >them, the better
> 
> For whom? For owners of proprietary technologies who do not have the least
> intention of making _their_ IPR available?

no.  for everyone else.  the "owners" of the proprietary technology can go
bankrupt, for all I care, and the rest of the world will be better off if 
they do so.  of course, we'd be even better off if they got a clue.

the term "intellectual property" is a misnomer.  the use of the word
"property" to describe ideas and expression of ideas has led to a widespread

confusion that ideas are like tangible property.  they're not.  for one
thing, 
the laws of supply and demand that apply to tangible property do not apply
to 
"intellectual property".  quite often "intellectual property" is worth more 
if you give it away than if you try to control it.  holders of IPR 
midunderstand this at their peril.

meanwhile, the net will treat IPR as damage and route around it. 

Keith
Received on Sunday, 1 April 2001 07:06:41 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:38:01 UTC