Subject: Re: IP
Date: Fri, 2 May 2003 15:35:29 -0700 (PDT)
To:       Bob Armstrong <bob@cosy.com>
From:     Ram Samudrala <ram@compbio.washington.edu>
Bob Armstrong wrote:

> What I mean is that your income comes from your academic job=
 and
> your research is funded by the university and state . So it is=
 easy
> for you to simply put your product in the "public" domain.

Yeah, but if money were my motivation, I'd be making millions=
 (at
least) off of what I've created. 

> Your flow of IP is your teaching . Actually , I would think=
 anything
> you published in peer-reviewed journals would be copy-right
> controlled by those journals .

They can think that, but since it's in the public domain (like a
U.S. Government work), anyone can also copy it.  You can place a
copyright stamp on top of a work in the public domain, but it=
 doesn't
mean anything.

> I , of course have no issue about you choosing whatever=
 personal
> policy you want .  Obviously I also have a very large amount=
 of
> "public" content . My main usage caveat on my "Wha?" page is=
 that I
> reserve the right to reflect anything I receive to the web site=
 ,
> not a restriction on copying . I think I will add a phrase to=
 the
> effect that copying is OK , with attribution .

Yep, credit where credit is due is a different issue. In science,=
 it's
a big deal though it's not punished by law. A person who doesn't
credit appropriately is not credited in turn.

> Please tell me your logical distinction .  

Copying vs. not copying. If you have a hamburger and I "take"=
 the
hamburger from you, you no longer have the hamburger. If I make a=
 copy
of the hamburger, then you still have the hamburger. Thus there's=
 a
fundamental distinction between something that's arbitrarily=
 copiable
vs. something that is not.

> While generally you can expect a better product , at least=
 initially
> from the creator of the concept , code or byte stream , to fail=
 to
> acknowledge a debt to that creator for that product is a=
 rip-off .

"Acknowledgement of debt" is still different from the creator
controlling the copying. Everyone stands on the shoulders of=
 giants. 

> Patents and copyrights have developed over hundreds of years=
 and are
> apparently so fundamental that they are included in the=
 Constitution
> itself . Such notions should not be dismissed lightly .

And they're not though the U.S. Constitution also included
slavery. Actually it's worth reading the writings of Thomas=
 Jefferson
on this who initially was against copyrights and patents.

And copyrights and patents have been only around about 300-500
years. Some of the world's greatest creations and inventions=
 occured
before that time. 

--Ram