IP: from Reed Re: Software Engineering, Dijkstra, and Hippocrates: ]

[David Farber <dave@farber.net>]

>
>Date: Sun, 27 May 2001 11:24:25 -0400
>To: farber@cis.upenn.edu
>From: "David P. Reed" <dpreed@reed.com>
>Subject: Re: IP: Re: Software Engineering, Dijkstra, and Hippocrates: ]
>Cc: Brad Cox <bcox@virtualschool.edu>
>
>Every once in a while, the "all information must be property" fringe goes 
>over the top in absurdity.  Brad Cox's latest note that you forwarded on 
>IP blaming open source for unreliable software engineering deserves a 
>response before it becomes "consensus reality"...feel free to post on IP 
>if you like.
>
>I'd love to see any  references that make the case that Civil Engineering 
>(or its "technological maturity") is grounded in intellectual property 
>rights.  Especially since the former field is much older than the latter 
>concepts.
>
>As a person with a long-standing and passionate avocation in exploring the 
>history of technological systems, I have never encountered such a claim.
>
>Since civil engineering practice predates the invention of "copyright" and 
>"patent" laws even in their most primitive form, this claim would seem to 
>be absurd.  Bridge, cathedral, and road designs were highly mature and 
>scientific without the benefit of "IP protection".  In fact, engineers and 
>designers built on each others' designs just fine.
>
>As for mechanical engineers, the same holds true - Roman catapults worked 
>pretty darn well without patent laws, for example.
>
>Buildings did not fall down in the 15th century because we didn't have 
>"effective intellectual property protection".
>
>Even modern mathematics and science were developed quite effectively 
>without "intellectual property protection" to make them "reliable" and 
>bug-free.
>
>I hardly think that Open Source (whatever other problems it may have as it 
>matures) can be blamed for unreliable software because it refuses 
>intellectual property protection.
>



For archives see: http://www.interesting-people.org/