3 ms·

I use a free operating system (Linux, currently Slackware) because I take property rights seriously. Years ago I decided that I did not want to use 'cracked' so

I use a free operating system (Linux, currently Slackware) because I take property rights seriously. Years ago I decided that I did not want to use 'cracked' software and didn't have much money. Strange how things turn out.

kefka 11y ago
> I use a free operating system (Linux, currently Slackware) because I take property rights seriously. That's weird. Physical property rights are very different to Intellectual Property Rights (copyright, patent, trademark). IPR can lead you to absurd conclusions: I own a DVD, and copy data to it, and the data is under copyright, the DVD now belongs to 2 different parties ?! Or, if I develop a widget, and manufacture it, it can somehow violate a patent and I now owe them large sums of money... or the patent holder can use the customers that purchased them?! Or I grow crops on my field using seed stock form our family. And Monsanto patented plants' spores cross-pollinate into your field. Now, you either are required to destroy your seed stock because of genetic pollution, buy Monsanto seed, or lose your farm. Yet again, IPR removes rights from property holders. So yes, you may take property rights seriously. But IPR leads to insane conclusions and absurd reasoning. IPR exists to take physical property rights away from you.
- throwawaykf05 11y ago
  Your "absurd" conclusions seem to be based on limited understanding of IPR and related facts. 1. The DVD example: if the data is under copyright and you do not own the rights, you cannot legally copy it (except for fair use etc. exceptions). The data on the DVD is an illegal copy, but it does not mean the rights holder owns the DVD itself. 2. You do not owe anyone anything for infringing a patent unless it is asserted. If it is asserted, then it's something you negotiate with the patent holder or go to court over it. It's no different from when people accidentally develop things on somebody else's land. I don't see what's absurd about that. 3. Accidental cross-pollination only ever results in negligible fractions of fields being covered with patented genes. If you look at the history of Monsanto lawsuits, each and every defendant was proven to have deliberately cross-pollinated their fields (e.g. Bowman had 80% plus of his field covered, and it was undeniably non-accidental). So the concern of having to destroy any significant part of your seed stock is purely theoretical.

kefka 11y ago

> I use a free operating system (Linux, currently Slackware) because I take property rights seriously. That's weird. Physical property rights are very different to Intellectual Property Rights (copyright, patent, trademark). IPR can lead you to absurd conclusions: I own a DVD, and copy data to it, and the data is under copyright, the DVD now belongs to 2 different parties ?! Or, if I develop a widget, and manufacture it, it can somehow violate a patent and I now owe them large sums of money... or the patent holder can use the customers that purchased them?! Or I grow crops on my field using seed stock form our family. And Monsanto patented plants' spores cross-pollinate into your field. Now, you either are required to destroy your seed stock because of genetic pollution, buy Monsanto seed, or lose your farm. Yet again, IPR removes rights from property holders. So yes, you may take property rights seriously. But IPR leads to insane conclusions and absurd reasoning. IPR exists to take physical property rights away from you.

throwawaykf05 11y ago
Your "absurd" conclusions seem to be based on limited understanding of IPR and related facts. 1. The DVD example: if the data is under copyright and you do not own the rights, you cannot legally copy it (except for fair use etc. exceptions). The data on the DVD is an illegal copy, but it does not mean the rights holder owns the DVD itself. 2. You do not owe anyone anything for infringing a patent unless it is asserted. If it is asserted, then it's something you negotiate with the patent holder or go to court over it. It's no different from when people accidentally develop things on somebody else's land. I don't see what's absurd about that. 3. Accidental cross-pollination only ever results in negligible fractions of fields being covered with patented genes. If you look at the history of Monsanto lawsuits, each and every defendant was proven to have deliberately cross-pollinated their fields (e.g. Bowman had 80% plus of his field covered, and it was undeniably non-accidental). So the concern of having to destroy any significant part of your seed stock is purely theoretical.