cox@stpstn.UUCP (Brad Cox) (08/10/90)
In article <4534@uqcspe.cs.uq.oz.au> brendan@batserver.cs.uq.oz.au writes: > >I think it is defintiely time to start seriously thinking about the >worth of continuing to apply physical property rights to intellectual >property. > >1) What does it mean to "own" an idea? >2) How is it possible to enforce respect for this ownership? >3) What are appropriate ways for others to respect this ownership, > i.e. what laws are appropriate for protection of ownership? >4) What rights should ownership entail? Software as "idea" is only one of many possible models that society might follow in buying and selling this hybrid abstract/concrete swamp we call software: Software as thing: Software merchants sell MS Word or Excell exactly as grocery stores buy/sell detergent. But it doesn't get used up, and can be copied. So maybe.. Software as service: Software merchants sell software as landscaping companies sell lawnmowing. The current version does get "used up" over time. You pay for upgrades. Going even further in this direction... Software as information: Software merchants sell software as Compuserve sells stock prices. Pay for software by the drink, according to how often/long you use it. These are only three points on a continuum of intermediate positions. Just pointing out that the intellectual property model is only one of many. I'm glad the politicians are paying attention of this, because the matter of how to pay for software is right on the critical path towards escaping the software crisis and the Age of Information. But I'm afraid that they are as confused about this hybrid software swamp as we are. -- Brad Cox; cox@stepstone.com; CI$ 71230,647; 203 426 1875 The Stepstone Corporation; 75 Glen Road; Sandy Hook CT 06482