From: Pi (moq@pirsig.ath.cx)
Date: Tue Aug 03 2004 - 03:10:14 BST
> How does the MoQ evaluate the idea of "intellectual property"?
Hello.
It should be obvious that the pattern of "intellectual prperty" lies in
both intellectual and social levels of static quality. Let me follow
through the life of a piece of "intellectual property"...
1. birth of an idea: This high quality even happens with an interaction
with Dynamic Quality. This is the point of the highest Quality.
2. idea is realized: The newborn idea merges into an intellectual
framework and becomes part of a large intellectual static pattern.
3. creation of a product: A long process that brings that idea (and
possibly many others) together and form a product. This product may have
inorganic properties (such as a software or a book), but it is still
largely an intellectual pattern. [Aside: technically, I wouldn't call this
thing a 'product' at this stage. A product is a very social term. And
there is no social pattern in action here. Not yet.]
4. copyright/patent of a product: Before the creator tells others about
this product he has to copyright or patent it. This is a critical point in
the life of this product as far as this discussion is concerned. This
product is now entering the arena of social patterns. It needs to be
protected from the social forces. It wasn't born in a social arena and it
doesn't really belong there, so it needs help to survive. The parent
level, the intellectual level, provides this help in form of legal
protection. Social patterns respect that. As this point the "intellectual
property" is born.
This step is also a very low quality event for the intellectual who made
this product. He (or she; I will stick to 'he' in the interest of brevity)
is compelled to do this because he needs the social benefits (money or
fame) to survive and thrive in the social world he lives in. He doesn't
know why it feels bad releasing this intellectually born thing out there
and selling it. This is the "immoral-ness" Pirsig talks about. Some people
do not feel any low quality at this point. This is the large group that
made the intellectual product for the sole purpose of making money. This
also makes the product fairly inferior, but that is a topic for another
day.
5. patent expires: After some time the patent expires and the product
enters the public domain. This pattern is free from it's intellectual
protection is free to roam the social realm, in combination to the
intellectual realm.
The two thoughts Rick mentioned, 1) authors and inventors should have
exclusive rights for a short period of time, 2) ideas and inventions
should eventually enter the public domain. These two may seem disjoint and
in disagreement with each other, but I think that they are both
intellectual patterns. They both have the same ulterior motive! They want
to protect ideas from being destroyed by social patterns. Both statements
are just said at different times. Statment 1 is said when the product is
released to the social realm and it is most likely to be subjected to it's
deadly forces. Statement 2 is said when the product is old and common
enough that it has been accepted in the social realm and does not stand a
risk of social abuse. So, both statements are intellectual patterns
protecting their own from the social patterns, just being said at
different times. As Rick says, the purpose of both statements is to
encourage innovation.
Another way to see this is from the perspective of an inventor, an
intellectual. Both these statements ensure that the inventor lives in a
worry free state so he can continue to invent without worrying about his
ideas' life. This point of view is of course not limited to an inventor.
This can be applied to any person who spends most time in intellectual
realm.
As far as open source software is concerned, it should be quite obvious
how moq would view this phenomenon. In short, it is an ingenious method to
legally require the social forces to keep their hands off the idea/product
all together. So, the author opts for the intellectual innovation by
completely ignoring the social rewards and problems. No wonder open source
movement sounds so weird to people who mostly function in a social world.
It must sound almost hippie-like. :)
[Another aside: I just noticed something about the 1-5 steps I have
mentioned. Notice how the level of quality reduces as time goes? As the
steps progress, the original spark (the DQ event before the idea formed)
got absorbed into the static patterns. As it got more and more absorbed
into static patterns, the lower the quality got.]
Comments are most welcome...
cheers,
-pi
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_focus/
MF Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
To unsubscribe from moq_focus follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/mf/subscribe.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Tue Aug 03 2004 - 07:18:49 BST