when is a right wrong?
good-person and defender of the right to “opt out” (in so many ways), Lawrence Lessig has left us a pointer to yet another example of bad government.
Larry references an article in the washington post (sometimes they ask you for demo info), with the following quote from Lois Boland (director of international relations for the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office): “…open-source software runs counter to the mission of WIPO, which is to promote intellectual-property rights.”
this, of course, implies that the mission of WIPO and, by extension, the Patent and Trademark Office is to work only for those persons or entities that intend to restrict rights, as opposed to those that intend to assign, waive or freely license their duly-earned and protected rights. this further implies that rights are subject to intent, and that your government and friendly neighborhood bureaucrat is both capable of discerning your intent and empowered to determine what rights then apply to you.
this feels a lot like many of the other inconsistent policies i see on the part of my government here in the united states.
isn’t the fundamental nature of a “right” that it applies universally? does it matter if it’s a civil right, a criminal right, a political right, a first amendment right, or an intellectual property right?
today, apparently, it does. someone will decide what rights you may or may not have, based on what they think you might do with those rights. i say that is wrong.