Subject: Re: Novel anti-software-patent article
From: "Stephen J. Turnbull" <>
Date: Fri, 7 Jan 2000 12:57:09 +0900 (JST)

Sorry for following up on my own post, but I seriously screwed up the
organization of the post.

>>>>> "Stephen" == Stephen J Turnbull <> writes:

<RANT> and <LECTURE TOPIC="welfare economics"> and then:

    Stephen> I think everybody who uses the Constitution's reasoning
    Stephen> agrees on this.

Obviously many won't agree with my rants and lectures.  What I meant
people agree on is _limiting the term of intellectual property

The point of the rant/lecture is simply that in the U.S. over 50% of
the public is fairly directly stockholders (and through pension funds
and the like, that figure goes to 70% or 80%), so profits are
benefits, _not costs_, to the public.  The real cost is the products
that never get _both_ created _and_ distributed.  The balance to
strike is not between corporate profit and public benefit; it's
between products not innovated because nobody sees a profit in doing
it public domain, and products not innovated because the royalty/
transactions costs are prohibitive.

University of Tsukuba                Tennodai 1-1-1 Tsukuba 305-8573 JAPAN
Institute of Policy and Planning Sciences       Tel/fax: +81 (298) 53-5091
/* What's the big deal about the millennium? .............................
.... There are still 360 shopping days left until the millennial epoch! */