From: Bob Leif
To: Alexander E. Kopilovitch et al.

I believe that the founding fathers of the USA would have approved of both
software patents and copyrights. In the historical context of the US
constitution, please understand that Ben Franklin made a good part of his
living from patents and publications. I suspect that this section of our
Constitution may have been the first private member's bill.

In any event, I believe that some of you share the same stereotype of
scientists and intellectuals. Please understand, that this type of
intellectual activity has its antecedents in medieval monks. These
individuals took oaths of poverty, chastity, and obedience. I am against all

There is no rational reason why I should make money from my histochemical
inventions and not make money on equivalent software innovation. Professors,
by custom, keep the royalties on their textbooks. What makes this type of
writing socially superior to the text necessary to instruct computers to
perform processes and permit humans to understand these processes
-----Original Message-----
From: Team Ada: Ada Advocacy Issues (83 & 95)
[mailto:[log in to unmask]]On Behalf Of Alexandre E. Kopilovitch
Sent: Thursday, March 01, 2001 10:11 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Microsoft lobbies gov't to control open source!

>Tom Moran <[log in to unmask]>
>> "Intellectual property" is a phrase you'll search for in vain in
>> the 18th and 19th centuries and indeed most of the 20th.
>  But look at the US Constitution (18th centry) for the concept, if not
>the phrase,

Two members of this list provided me the [same] excerpt that they think is
one you had in mind:

Article I (which defines the legislative branch of our federal government),
Section 8 (referring to powers of the legislature), Clause 8:

"Clause 8: [The Congress shall have Power] To promote the Progress of
Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and
Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and

In this clause the concept is quite different: the "exclusive Right for
Times" is rather concrete concept, but the "intellectual property", on the
contrary, is a broad and generic concept, it can be easily used as a source
of various far-fetched deductions. So, replacing the "exclusive Right" by
"property" (no matter, intellectual or of another kind), is an unjustified