Re: [Fsfe-uk] Re: [discuss] Open source software News

[Ralph Janke]

NorthLondon John wrote:

> On 29 May 2004, at 17:08, Ralph Janke wrote:
>
> > Timothy Baldwin wrote:
> >
> > > How do claim that patents, a form intelluctual propiery, and 
> > > therefore a form of private propetry, are socialistic?
> > The justification for patents is that they are for the common good of 
> > society. This is one of the principles of
> > socialism. The idea of socialism is to restricts individual freedom 
> > for what it is claimed to be good for the whole of society.
> > If you look in Article 1,s. 8 in the US Constitution, you will read 
> > that the purpose of granting exclusive (monopoly) rights
> > to inventors is the benefit of the progress of sciences. The benefit 
> > is for all of society.
>
> Ah, yes. That notorious socialist screed, the US Constitution.
>
> It's inevitable that there will be many different, conflicting, and 
> even implacably opposed points of view in a campaign such as this. Go 
> ahead, make your case. But don't make up history.
>
> John
You are certainly right with what you saying, and it wasn't my intent to 
change history. I also did not try to make the US Constitution a social 
paper ;-)

What I was, apparently very badly, trying to convey is that the 
argument, that open source is socialism, by someone who is against 
socialism, can be very easily rebutted by showing that patents have soem 
socialist point of it. This is a matter of rethoric. It is more about 
attacking the line of argument of someon who calls open source 
socialist. Often it can tactically be better to take the opponent's 
argument the wind out of the sails than trying to convince somebody of a 
long argument.

I know that sounds somewhat stupid, however is a very successful debate 
technique when you otherwise loose the audience. It is also commonly 
used in jury trials.

Hope that clarifies a little my point....

Ralph  Janke