TechWhirl (TECHWR-L) is a resource for technical writing and technical communications professionals of all experience levels and in all industries to share their experiences and acquire information.
For two decades, technical communicators have turned to TechWhirl to ask and answer questions about the always-changing world of technical communications, such as tools, skills, career paths, methodologies, and emerging industries. The TechWhirl Archives and magazine, created for, by and about technical writers, offer a wealth of knowledge to everyone with an interest in any aspect of technical communications.
Subject:RE: A Question of Ethics From:"Douglas S. Bailey (AL)" <dbailey -at- commandalkon -dot- com> To:"TECHWR-L" <techwr-l -at- lists -dot- raycomm -dot- com> Date:Mon, 20 Aug 2001 13:15:36 -0500
> Well, that's because some of the underlying
> assumptions are absurd. Certain people in this
> list, and in the world at large, have a vested
> interest in a flawed model, so they are
> reluctant to admit -- or even to dispassionately
> examine why that model is showing cracks.
Why should anyone but the model manufacturers "dispassionately examine" a
model's cracks? I could understand why unrelated individuals would be
interested...if they were unscrupulous.
> Any law is artificial, in the sense that it is
> a bunch of words describing an idea. However, the
That sense is irrelevant to this discussion, since it removes all context.
> distinction I wanted to make is that copyright
> and other "intellectual property" laws are not
> supported by underlying "natural law", the way
> basic prohibitions against assault and physical
> theft... are.
It seems to be that "natural law" is as artificial as any other type of law.
Chaos and anarchy are about as "natural" as you can get.
> In other words, the concepts (and the laws and
> regulations based on them) of "intellectual
> property" are largely self-referential. The
> common man or woman, despite having been exposed
> to them for all of their lives (and the lives
> of their recent ancestors) does not buy into the
> "intellectual property" concepts with the same
> ease and comfort that they buy into prohibitions
> against physical theft, assault, property damage.
Pretending that the above is true, you seem to be suggesting that since the
"common man" doesn't buy into it, that it must be invalid. This is hardly
the case: the US of A is a republic, not a democracy. Majority rule is not
the rule.
Acceptance of a law isn't a prerequisite for its validity.
> It becomes his choice whether to keep the secret
> safe and make profit only on the number of pieces
> he is able to create single-handedly, or to risk
> the secret by employing others to help him produce
> greater quantities. He can minimize the risk of
Choosing the latter option does not void his right to patent protection.
*** 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.
