Date: Wed, 10 Oct 2001 23:42:27 -0700 From: Terry Lambert <tlambert2@mindspring.com> To: Rahul Siddharthan <rsidd@physics.iisc.ernet.in> Cc: cjclark@alum.mit.edu, Salvo Bartolotta <bartequi@neomedia.it>, Ted Mittelstaedt <tedm@toybox.placo.com>, "P. U. (Uli) Kruppa" <root@pukruppa.de>, freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Use of the UNIX Trademark Message-ID: <3BC53F53.967C60E7@mindspring.com> References: <000601c15084$87edd360$1401a8c0@tedm.placo.com> <1002663600.3bc36eb096ee5@webmail.neomedia.it> <20011009231343.C387@blossom.cjclark.org> <1002731960.3bc479b899603@webmail.neomedia.it> <20011010140126.M387@blossom.cjclark.org> <20011010233539.G83192@lpt.ens.fr>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Rahul Siddharthan wrote: > This is a common claim. The trouble is it is hard to substantiate, or > test in a controlled way, and depends on too many assumptions (that > people will not do research except on money; people will not spend > money on expensive research except for tangible rewards; people will > not innovate unless they can control the use of their ideas; etc.) I guess we could compare U.S. biotechnology or computer science, where it's possible to patent the results, with other countries, where it is not. 8-). Whether you like it or not, strong intellectual property law is one of the greatest contributors to U.S. primacy in almost all fields of technology where we don't have social reasons for not pursuing the technology. That's not to say that I don't agree with the main point of this dicussion: U.S. I.P. law is becoming insanely draconian, far beyond the level necessary to obtain the benefits of having strong laws for _limited_ periods of time. -- Terry To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?3BC53F53.967C60E7>