CDR: RE: New OLD cryptograph patent for NSA

[Jim Choate]

On Thu, 12 Oct 2000, David Honig wrote:

> At 12:36 PM 10/12/00 -0400, Tim May wrote:
> >In a crypto anarchic 
> >society, patents will mostly be moot.)
> 
> Really?

Actualy, with respect to free market theory, yes.

Per Hayek,

1.	A homogeneous commodity offered and demanded by a large number
	of relatively small sellers and buyers, none of whom expects
	to exercise by their action a perceptible influence on price.

2.	Free entry into the market and absence of other restraints on
	the movement of prices and resources.

3.	Complete knowledge of the relevant factors on the part of all
	participants in the market.

Consider 1,

It must be universal in nature or design (homogeneous, one is like any
other, interchangeable).

None expect to make an influence in the price so clearly no participant
'owns' or 'controls' any particular aspect about the widget or its
availability.

Consider 2,

The 'free entry' requires that any party wishing to participate as either
a buyer or seller is free to do so. Contrary to both patent and copyright
theory.

Consider 3,

Probably more applicable to copyright over patents. Patents are intended
to make the knowledge wide spread but control the actual
use/implimentation.

A rather long quote from Hayek,

Patents, in particular, are specially interesting from our point of view
because they provide so clear an illustration  of how it is necessary in
all such instances not to apply the ready formula but to go back to the
rationale of the market system and to decide for each class what the
precise rights are to be which the government ought to protect. This is a
task at least as much for economist as for lawyers. Perhaps it is not a
waste of your time if I illustrate what I have in mind by quoting a rather
well known decision in which an American judge argued that "as to the
suggestion that competitors were excluded from the use of the patent we
answer that such exclusion may be said to have been the very essence of
the right conferred by the patent" and adds "as it is the privilige of any
owner of property to use it or not to use it without any question of
motive." It is this last statement which seems to be to be significant for
the way in which a mechanical extension of the property concept by lawyers
has done so much to create undesirable and harmful privilige.

    ____________________________________________________________________

                     He is able who thinks he is able.

                                           Buddha

       The Armadillo Group       ,::////;::-.          James Choate
       Austin, Tx               /:'///// ``::>/|/      ravage at ssz.com
       www.ssz.com            .',  ||||    `/( e\      512-451-7087
                           -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'-
    --------------------------------------------------------------------