On Jan 30, 2006, at 16:25, Jeff Pritchard wrote: > > Mental, > So Mr. X publishes three seconds before Ms. Y. Technically, X owns > it, > but how many members of the community are going to be outraged by Ms. > Y's efforts to monetize her slightly tardy genius. Not many. My > point > is that by removing the Lawyers and their need to make everything "a > decision", you allow the community to weigh each incident on its own > merits and make up their minds. Meanwhile, when some Bill Gates- > ish guy > comes along and tries to own yet another space by flat out stealing > the > best of what has already been claimed by others...at least a few > members > of the community will get ticked off enough to do something about it. Ah, but what about when popular, marketing-savvy Ms Q "popularises" something legitimately claimed by quiet, introverted, and previously unknown Mr Z? The community, being predisposed to liking Ms Q, probably wouldn't be fussed, and it's likely just as many people will think that Ms Q invented it as will stand up for Mr Z, given the lack of perfect information. As the 'community' becomes larger, this information gap grows, making it easier for people to take advantage of. I think you attribute a sense of moral justice to the Mobbe which most of them simply don't apply to everyday situations (because it costs them: there's a significant opportunity cost involved in gathering enough information to make accurate decisions). Presented with a good-enough solution, people will tend to use it regardless of the ethics of who provides it; examples abound in virtually every sphere of life. So while it's clear to me that the current patent framework is hideously broken at the moment (patent applications have an inverse correlation with %R&D spend in software - what does THAT tell you?), this does not mean that a legal framework for creativity rights can or should be done away with; there's no other way to protect the rights of people like Mr Z. matthew smillie.