I find that offensive.
No offense intended. But it did seem counter-intuitive for Free
Culture to kill its father. ;-)
Since I brought up patents, I'll talk in terms of patents.
There is a perfectly reasonable case for patent abolition. There
are well-known orthodox economists who will argue for it (michele
boldrin and david levine, in particular). There are major global
campaigns around alternatives to patents applied to medicine (see
Jamie Love's CPTech site). There have been repeated studies that
show that periods of patent abolition in the past (Holland/
Switzerland) had no kind of adverse economic effects. etc.
Well, to be fair you need to broaden the analysis and ask why
intellectual property regimes are so de-rigor at the moment. Holland
between 1850 and 1890 was, to be fair, hardly living in an
information economy, and nor was Switzerland, which didn't get a
patent law till 1887 (although it was extended in 1907 and 1976).
Arguing against Patent's is one thing (this is an opinion), proving
that they are unnecessary is quite another. In an economic system
whereby profit is linked to the control and ownership of information
and knowledge, I cannot see how, without intellectual property
protection in some form that profit will be made. Therefore there
will be an economic imperative (if not a political one) to
instantiate, if not strengthen patent law. And indeed, the historical
evidence seems to be that this is indeed the case.
Arguing, on the other hand, about the limits, exceptions and balance
between the public good and private interest seems to me, at least, a
more cogent and political attainable activity. But as you say, it
depends on what Free Culture wants to be -- something I still don't
really think it has decided.
You may well disagree with the position, and/or think it
unrealistic for FC-UK to support it. But there is no reason to
call people who believe patents to be harmful 'idiots', especially
when FC-UK has so far been broad enough to contain both points of
view. Or to claim some kind of monopoly on 'careful consideration
of the pros and cons'.
It is not whether I disagree with it or not, in fact this is really a
question of strategy. You see I cannot see how Free Culture can exist
without the intellectual property regime. Or rather, that our present
understanding of Free Culture is constituted by its Other. That being
the case, abolition of intellectual property law is arguing for the
abolition of Free Culture itself.
_______________________________________________
fc-uk-discuss mailing list
fc-uk-discuss@lists.okfn.org
http://lists.okfn.org/mailman/listinfo/fc-uk-discuss
