[Glenn]

with just a tinge of current relevance

Much more than a tinge, I would say.

With AIDS killing by the millions, countries are put to a decision about whether to respect a patent or save the citizenry. Bleeding heart that I am, I am all for the latter -- without lengthy negotiation with any corporate protector.

Protecting the writings of David Baldacci is "morality" with a little 'm'. Saving the lives of millions is "morality" with a giant 'M'.

It would be most interesting to see how the mind of Franklin would deal with the dilemma.

[Durus]

What decision are you referring to?

[HopefulPatriot]

"Protecting the writings of David Baldacci is "morality" with a little 'm'. Saving the lives of millions is "morality" with a giant 'M'."

It is the little "m" concept that you seem to malign that makes the big "M" idea conceptually possible. Most socialists suffer from the same Mistake. Sadly, as beneficial as copyrights and patents have been, there is nothing without a few warts. Here are some of the warts:

1. Copyright protections are too long and result in multiples of patent protections for inventions. The genuine dissemination of knowledge and useful information is impeded by the excessively prolonged copyright protection.
2. The quantity of inventions and the scope of their complexities are advancing or already have advanced beyond the human capacity to discriminate between their complexities making the task of determining infringement increasingly arbitrary rather than concretely factual.
3. Digital technology takes the policing of copyrights to much higher levels of difficulty, somewhat analogous to the problem with patents.
4. These two problems are going to become exponentially more difficult to resolve in the future.

I have not researched the history of copyrights and patents, but am a bit surprised to learn the concept only dates to Franklin and the mind of one man. Regardless of whether Franklin is the Father Of Imtellectual Protection or not, it is the catalyst that made modern capitalism possible. And if I am correct, that the complexities of determining infringement threaten to completely undermine their usefulness, one cannot help but wonder how capitalism itself will adapt to the transition and what the changes will be.

[Sonny M]

Protecting the writings of David Baldacci is "morality" with a little 'm'. Saving the lives of millions is "morality" with a giant 'M'.

Oddly, when I was in college, this situation came up.

We debated it back and forth.

My opinion was simple, if I am the CEO of a company, and a nation reject or strips my patent for drugs or cancer or what not.

I'll have to chalk it up as a lesson learned, and realize that its foolish to ever do any kind of work in those fields again i.e. freeze all cancer and aids research immediatly and invest in something else.

What was scary, is that my idea isn't original, and alot of executives in pharmacutucal industry are starting to lean towards investment in medical technology.

The question then asked, is how many more millions will now be affected or die as a result of those decisions?