Subject: Re: Examples needed against Soft Patents [signed]
From: "Marc Manthey [c]" <marc@let.de>
Date: Wed, 19 Jan 2005 03:20:06 +0100


On 19. Jan 2005, at 3:11 Uhr, jean_camp wrote:

> It does make sense to me if you think about the Statute of Anne. When 
> was this written? 1789? So there were three basic approaches to 
> copyright at that time
> 1. licensing : the king owns everything, and grants 'patents" (they 
> called them that don't ask me why) to printers to make copies. making 
> something not approved by the King is hazardous to your health
> 2. moral rights: each author has a right to control his own words, as 
> the essence of the author is in his work. For example, the self-parody 
> that occurs at the beginning of Lo's Diary is a result of that level 
> of control
> 3. copy rights: this meant that anyone who wrote could have a 
> copyright, and those rights could be sold or traded freely. The author 
> did not retain rights forever based on moral grounds
> 4. free information: under the licensing system most information was 
> free. most information was beneath the ownership of the King. So if 
> you ever hear that Shakespeare's  plays were 'pirate' copies that is 
> not quite true. His material was not subject to patents and licensure 
> being fiction.
>
> So I could see that the founders could have been rejecting 1 & 2, and 
> implicitly rejecting 4. Or maybe just ignoring 4, because they were 
> concerned with quality work (kind of funny given the quality of most 
> work....) and did not see that as a viable model, but rather as a 
> failure of the first model. If that were the case they  did choose the 
> most open functional model of the time.
>
> I had never read that about "progress". So it meant availability and 
> distribution? How interesting.
>
> -Jean
>
> On Jan 13, 2005, at 2:46 PM, Laurent GUERBY wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 2005-01-12 at 22:54 -0500, Seth Johnson wrote:
>>> Actually, the following paper explains that in the vernacular of
>>> the time, "progress" meant "spread," not "quantitative
>>> improvement" in an economic sense:
>>
>> Thanks for the reference, quite surprising :). Even if I would
>> like to believe the paper point,
>>
>> <<
>> Clause 8: To promote the "Progress" of Science and useful Arts, by
>> securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive 
>> Right
>> to their respective Writings and Discoveries;
>>>>
>>
>> becomes
>>
>> <<
>> Clause 8: To promote the "Spread" of Science and useful Arts, by
>> securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive 
>> Right
>> to their respective Writings and Discoveries;
>>>>
>>
>> This doesn't parse, how giving the power to forbid
>> copies of a work or use of an invention for everyone but who the
>> author/inventor authorizes will help in "spreading" the work/invention
>> compared to no restriction for everyone?
>>
>> Laurent
>>
>>

hi  all
is this  regarding  to this?

We've been informed by the secretariat that a third-party IPR 
disclosure has been made relating to draft-ietf-mmusic-img-req-07.txt.

Details can be found at 
https://datatracker.ietf.org/public/ipr_detail_show.cgi?&ipr_id=520

marc


-- 
---------------------[ Ciphire Signature ]----------------------
From: marc@let.de signed email body (2460 characters)
Date: on 19 January 2005 at 02:20:33 GMT
To:   seth.johnson@realmeasures.dyndns.org, russell@flora.ca, fsb@crynwr.com, stephen@xemacs.org,
laurent@guerby.net, jean_camp@harvard.edu
----------------------------------------------------------------
: Ciphire has secured this email against identity theft.
: Free download at www.ciphire.com. The garbled lines
: below are the sender's verifiable digital signature.
----------------------------------------------------------------
00fAAAAAEAAADxw+1BnAkAAAQEAAIAAgACACB6JPkJDS62Le8oatOMQgStHHYFEn
RrUxGm+dM7rZFzYQEAqQIYiEaREG7NTj6qvVA1V1Wx1zkNR3St/6icsOFZQ9SS49
ibMsDIZFCkYOg8JOKuRQ0QIU5G1+ArwriiuS2CUg==
------------------[ End Ciphire Signed Message ]----------------