MAPA, forgive me because I do not have enough Spanish to deal with this
topic intelligently in Spanish. Lo siento mucho, amigo.
I've enjoyed seeing this topic written of with such vigor, mainly because
it demonstrates that people within the region recognize the reality.
There have been valid points about things that people consider to be owned
intellectually. While I do not agree with the phrase 'intellectual
property', I use it in single quotation marks - much to the *personal*
annoyance of Richard Stallman and other members of the Free Software
Foundation. However, I am in good company - Lawrence Lessig, a
constitutional lawyer in the United States, uses the phrase because it is a
legal reality. He does a great job of explaining the history of
'intellectual property' in his book 'Free Culture', which I helped make
available in English with Wikipedia references:
http://www.easylum.net/freeculture
In Spanish, it is available in 2 places:
http://blogspace.com/freeculture/Contenidos and
http://www.elastico.net/archives/001222.html
In Portugese, it is available
here: http://www.freeculturebr.blogspot.com/ and
http://www.pe.softwarelivre.org/pixies/livros/culturalivre.pdf
In French, it is available here: http://blogspace.com/freeculture/Accueil
And for a complete list of 'remixes', you can look here:
http://free-culture.org/remixes/
'Intellectual property' is a legal reality. To deny it, to attempt to make
it irrelevant by not using the phrase, is folly - it plays into the
hands of lawyers (no offense, Erik).
There are examples within Lessig's "Free Culture" that, once again, could
be given - but it would help a lot more if people actually read
the book, since it explains 'intellectual property' in the modern context
that affects us all through TRIPs agreements: the American legal
system. As Lessig said, in Chapter 13 I believe, it is up to countries to
exercise *sovereignity*.
However, he does not touch on patents. And Patents are a matter of great
concern not only because of the effect that they have on software -
something that the FSF rallies against on all fronts (and, sadly, with the
same strategies without more transparency to the general public - I'm not
only a member, I'm also strongly critical) - but it does not address the
implications in other aspects. Not many of you know that even U.S. farmers
have been put in jail because of licensing issues related to patents on
agriculture - I write about it constantly on my weblog and in other places
- or the effect of patents on trade secrets, and so on.
Patent law, a branch of 'intellectual property' law, is a very strange and
non-intuitive aspect of law when compared to trademarks and copyright.
In the context of software, it is intuitively strange that software can be
patented without acknowledging the patents of the computer hardware itself!
This is because of the silent addition of clauses which allow software to
be patented under extremely vague conditions - and through legal trial and
error with the budget the size of some of our countries GNPs, the large
corporations that produce software have bent Patent Law to their whim and
fancy. While it's amusing that Microsoft *accidentally* patented an apple
(the fruit) last year during patent processing, it should also be disturbing.
What's most sad - and where I agree the most with Diego Saravia - is that
not many people take it seriously. It's frustrating, like watching a bus
full of schoolchildren go over the bridge in slow motion as you watch. And
make no mistake, that is *exactly* what is happening - the future, the
potential of the future, is going over the side of the bridge. Those who
stand by and do nothing are as much of a problem as those who are working
toward making software and other types of patents have such a high level of
financial and legal entry that OUR region will be unable to keep up, and
will always be behind - which means that we will always be in second place
at best - and always be developing nations. Is that the future we work
towards? I hope not. And yet it's important that the frustration we feel
not alienate those who are easily alienated. The balance is difficult to
strike, but the common good should be apparent and should be *acted upon*.
This is not a world I would want my potential children to grow up in - and
I will not allow it to be a world that any of our children grow up in while
there is breath in this body, or working keyboards around. That is the
measure of my resolve, and I have demonstrated it on more than one occasion.
We can talk legal and ethics all that we want, but it boils down to what we
see in the future and what sort of world we wish our descendants to live in
- morality, ethics and legality are tools and ONLY tools toward that end.
What is missing most is how we choose to view this future - our collective
vision of the future. If we see a future where our nations have the
opportunity to contribute to a global future, if we see ourselves and the
children of our nations to be worthy of not only helping to build a new
world but having leadership roles, whether our people are only second best
and should stay there or should live in a world where opportunity for all
is equal.
This is what we really discuss - our future, but more importantly the
future without us. Our present does not define the future, *we* decide the
future and the present comes with tools and hindrances.
What tools would you have the future of our region - Latin America and the
Caribbean - be able to use? From that vision, a common vision I believe,
but from that vision we must work backwards. The bottom line: How would you
have your grandchildren live?
Taran Rampersad
Este archivo fue generado por hypermail 2.1.3 : Fri Jul 1 11:02:37 2005 AST