Message 02944 [Homepage] [Navigation]
Thread: oxenT02944 Message: 1/1 L0 [In index]
[First in Thread] [Last in Thread] [Date Next] [Date Prev]
[Next in Thread] [Prev in Thread] [Next Thread] [Prev Thread]

[ox-en] Re: ! !Re: ! !Re: [Upd-discuss] Did You Say "Intellectual Property"? It's a Seductive Mirage by Richard M. Stallman

Richard M. Stallman wrote:
The term "exclusive rights" avoids the bias of the term "intellectual
property", but shares its confusion.  It focuses attention on the
_form_ which is common to laws such as copyright, patents, and
trademarks, and away from their _substance_, in which they are
completely different.  This is not conducive to clear thinking about
any one of these laws.

I recognise an ontology, which I would tend to label as atomistic [1]

  "Knowledge is never created in a vacuum. Hiding the raw data or prior
   sources of research is either hiding plagiarism or preventing others
   from verifying, duplicating, or improving on the knowledge
   (freedom 1)"

This is one decryption / solution to the GPL's first freedom. ( As
generalised elsewhere [2] )

I'm sure it has been read in many other ways and is responsible for
attracting support from a wide spectrum of folk. After all, it has the
feel of a Bill of Rights. [3]

Words are slippy you know. Take this question: Can knowledge be created
in a vacuum ?

I tend to agree with the second sentence of the decryption though:

 "Hiding the raw data or prior sources of research is either hiding
  plagiarism or preventing others from verifying, duplicating, or
  improving on the knowledge"

On that note I quote *Time Machines and the Constitutions of the Globe*

I was taken by this paragraph:

  "It is in this context that Galison argues that Einstein's 1905
   article *On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies* [5], 'the best
   known physics paper of the twentieth century', bears the imprint of
   this crossroads between science and legal literature. It is 'a
   scientific paper written in the form and rigour of a patent
   application'. Galison notes that 'it has long struck scholars that
   the style (of the paper ) .. does not even look like an ordinary
   physics paper. There are essentially no footnotes to other authors'
   ... by contrast typical 'physics articles were filled with references
   to other papers; Einstein's article does not fit this mold'"

Shame really.

No doubt it would have served as a better learning artifact if the
sources were referenced. But all the same, an understandable form of
documentation, given Einstein's position and drive.

This paper, amongst others, enabled Einstein to trade on his specialist
knowledge, his patent so to speak, and benefit from being at the
pinnacle of a self-created academic pyramid scheme, Cf [6].

Fair play, some would say; his heart was in the right place. Others
would disagree. I've heard them.

I find his initial physics clear -- his ontology can be traced back
through many inter-weaved threads of thought. The fact that it presumes
an open metaphysics script is often missed. Many movements have been
founded upon an open metaphysics script and this is often missed. Yet
this knowledge is in the public domain -- in books, laws and cultures.

It is clear that his metaphysics changed as time went by. It is clear
that his later physics needs further decryption and reality-testing,
before being incorporated in to a universal model, in the Public Domain.

[1]  As far as philosophy is concerned, I like the stories of Roger Zelazny.

[2]  [ox-en] role of science and universities

[3]  Bill of Rights 1689

[4]  Time Machines and the Constitutions of the Globe

[5]  On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies

[6]  Albania, Enron etc.

[7]  Arctic Monkeys
Contact: projekt

Thread: oxenT02944 Message: 1/1 L0 [In index]
Message 02944 [Homepage] [Navigation]