] Whether we protect intellectual property as an
] inalienable right or as a privilege vouchsafed by the
] sovereign, such protection inevitably entails making some
] choices that have crucial implications for the balance we
] strike between the interests of those who innovate and
] those who would benefit from innovation.

This is a worrysome and cryptic comment.

1. He raises the specter of Intellectual Property as an inalienable right. With respect to the Constitution that is an extremely radical position. It has gained ground in recent years because of careful marketing efforts by the media industries. His comment is too vauge to know what he really wants, only that he thinks IP should be strengthened.

2. The separation of "those who innovate" and "those who would benefit from innovation" into two separate and exclusive groups is crusty industrial age thinking.

3. Finance people often do not understand the economic importance of activity which occurs outside of the market. I didn't figure Greenspan to be one of those people. Your strong protections for innovators aren't going to do you much good if you can't innovate because all of your citizens are stupid. If you create a world where culture only exists for entertainment purposes and comment, criticisms, and derivative works are all impossible to produce your culture will stagnate and your people will become dull.

4. If you have to rebuild the entire operating system from scratch in order to make a small improvement to a particular feature, you aren't going to do it. IP maximalism hurts innovation.

Greenspan: Secure intellectual property