Path: utzoo!utgpu!water!watmath!clyde!att!osu-cis!killer!ames!husc6!rutgers!aramis.rutgers.edu!webber
From: webber@aramis.rutgers.edu (Bob Webber)
Newsgroups: comp.misc
Subject: Re: Free Free Flow (was: Re: Intellectual property/copyrights)
Message-ID: 
Date: 10 Jul 88 03:51:07 GMT
References: <9160@cisunx.UUCP> <1801@uhccux.UUCP> <807@netxcom.UUCP> <1812@looking.UUCP>
Organization: Rutgers Univ., New Brunswick, N.J.
Lines: 58

In article <1812@looking.UUCP>, brad@looking.UUCP (Brad Templeton) writes:
> In article  webber@aramis.rutgers.edu (Bob Webber) writes:
> ...
> And come up with garbage, the same way that shareware and PD software
> that wasn't made explicitly for mass distribution is mostly garbage.
> 
> Anybody who's been there will tell you that making a product for use by
> large numbers of real people is *hard* work, work that won't get done if
                   ^^^^ as opposed to fake people?
> there isn't an incentive.  It's easily twice to ten times as much work as
> just putting a program together.  The commercial part of making a commercial
> program really is 90% of the job, and people think it should be eliminated!

So?  Today programming is remarkably primitive.  Ideas that it takes a
few minutes to come up with can take weeks to implement.  That doesn't
mean that the ideas are new, novel, or somehow special and should be
protected like patents or literature.  It just means that things are
awfully crude.  Things are only going to get better by developing
large pools of freely usable and well understood software.

>Well, I picked Star Wars because it's a film most people enjoyed.  The point
>was there have been many works that have enriched the field, in most people's
>opinions, that were EXPENSIVE to make.  Star Wars was just one example.
>Without ownership of I.P., the world would not get these works, and while
>Bob Webber might not get upset, a lot of others would.

Are these works really ``enriching the field'' or is it just that after
spending millions to create something you spend a few more to make
sure everyone sees it and likes it.  Mostly a matter of throwing good
money after bad.

>>You mean that the only way they could beat out lotus is to make a better
>>product.  Gee, shucks, wouldn't want them to have to do that.
> 
> No.  You can't beat out Lotus by making a better product today.  That's
> the whole point.  You have to do *more* than make a better product.  You
> might make it better and price it cheaper, like Borland plans.  You have
> to be able to match the Lotus machine, or guarantee the product like
> Microsoft does.  The point is that without ownership of I.P., it may
> be almost impossible to unseat outdated "standards" without incentives.

You forget that it is your I.P. ownership that is preventing one from starting
directly with Lotus and creating enhancements rather than having to re-invent
the wheel as well as the axle.

> Actually, I view this as a more fundamental debate, namely the one about
> whether I.P. should exist, and how it should exist.  The answer to
> "is it ok to copy software" falls out of this, but it is at a different
> level.

Is it ok to copy software? If it is illegal due to licensing or copyright
or whatever, then the answer is no.  Instead of copying such junk, it should
be boycotted.  If it is freely available, the sure -- copy away.  

Under what circumstances should it be illegal to copy software is the
actual issue.

---- BOB (webber@athos.rutgers.edu ; rutgers!athos.rutgers.edu!webber)