Intellectual Property and Open Source

I am reading a book by the same title as this blog entry. The book is by Van Lindberg. This is my brainlog as I read.

Intellectual property law is, at its most basic, an attempt to remedy a failure in the market for knowledge. We want more knowledge in society, but the nature of knowledge tends to discourage (or technically, underencourage) efforts to create and share new ideas.
(Italics mine).

What is it about the nature of knowledge? We love logic but choose our axioms with passion. If the claim that knowledge has a nature that acts a particular way is an axiom, what passion does that claim provoke?

Seduction and Betrayal

This is a really good op-ed. Mayhill Fowler gets just the right amount of "philosophical and epistemological" in her reflections on the recent McChrystal blow-up.

The storyteller changes reality, because the story changes our memory, personal and collective. It's always that way. It's the great lesson of the Deconstructionist school. All narrators are untrustworthy -- or rather, trust is not the same as fact. And faith is an act of trust, not fact.