RE: More ethics...

["Susan W. Gallagher" <SGallagher -at- akonix -dot- com>]

Kevin said:
> If I take a new and finely machined part and ...spit out 
> copy after copy, I don't have to pay residuals 
> to the guy who machined the archetype object.
> If I get a portrait ... and run that through a ... scanner, 
> ... I'm supposed to pay the portrait painter 
> each time I sell a copy, unless I have a piece 
> of paper entitling me to reproduction rights 
> for the image.
> 
> The difference is...?

Oh, but you do have to pay residuals to the machinist
if the part is patented; just as you must pay the
painter because his work is copyrighted. (Although 
copyrighting is much more automatic than patenting.)And 
what of business practices? Those can be patented too. If, 
for example, I document and patent the process by which I
create a developer's guide, you cannot employ the same
process unless you pay me royalties. The difference is
that I have chosen to protect my intellectual property;
the plumber or gardener, unaware that such protection 
is available, neglects to file the proper paperwork to
support the property claim (although, certainly, the 
plumber could patent the process by which he cleans your
drain and the gardner could patent the process by which
he plants your roses).

In my experience, the most difficult part about enforcing
intellectual property rights is in introducing the concept
of intellectual property. Most people just don't have any
idea that such laws exist. The only reason that we are so
painfully aware of them is that our work is directly affected
by them.

Case in point: In a prior life, I worked in a shop that 
employed a lot of interns. One of the interns had been
charged with creating a Y2K-compliance statement for the
company web site. He did a very nice job, complete with 
a cute little bug graphic.

"Nice," said I. "Where did you get the graphic?"

"Off the web."

<blink   blinkblink> "Off the web _where_???"

"I found a great Y2K site!"

"Yabbut... You can't _do_ that!"

"Huh?"

"Copyright... intellectual property laws... copyright..."

"Oh, no, it's okay. I didn't copy it, I just linked to it!"

Well, you get the idea. Not clue one. And it matters not --
ignorance of the law is no excuse. Ignorance that the property
is owned is no excuse. You could come up with the same business
process as mine entirely on your own. If I catch you using it,
I can sue for damages and make you stop or pay royalties just
because I've filed the papers that say I own it.

Ethics have nothing to do with it. Your using a business process
identical to the one I've patented may be 100% ethical on your
part. You had no way of knowing the practice was patented (short
of an extensive search at the patent office, that is). It's
still illegal. My suing you for using my practice may be 100%
legal and totally unethical; maybe I waited until you'd developed
your business around the practice so that your survival in business
depends on the process and you've earned enough money for my suit
to be worthwhile.

Don't confuse ethics and legality -- or for that matter, legality
and justice. Sometimes there's no correlation at all.

-Sue Gallagher
sgallagher -at- akonix -dot- com


^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

*** Deva(tm) Tools for Dreamweaver and Deva(tm) Search ***
Build Contents, Indexes, and Search for Web Sites and Help Systems
Available now at http://www.devahelp.com or info -at- devahelp -dot- com

A landmark hotel, one of America's most beautiful cities, and 
three and a half days of immersion in the state of the art:
IPCC 01, Oct. 24-27 in Santa Fe.  http://ieeepcs.org/2001/

---
You are currently subscribed to techwr-l as: archive -at- raycomm -dot- com
To unsubscribe send a blank email to leave-techwr-l-obscured -at- lists -dot- raycomm -dot- com
Send administrative questions to ejray -at- raycomm -dot- com -dot-  Visit 
http://www.raycomm.com/techwhirl/ for more resources and info.