On Thu, Jan 06, 2005 at 06:20:29PM -0800, Michael K. Edwards wrote: > > > ... and was enacted in an environment where previously no property > > > right in ideas or expression was widely recognized > > > > That's not accurate. You're dismissing the previous widely recognized > > property rights because they don't fit your notion of "fair". That > > doesn't change the fact that they existed. They were just held by the > > publishers. > > No, I'm relying on legal historians' assessments of the regime prior > to the Statute of Anne,
Blaming somebody else for doing it doesn't make it valid. > That's not a legal foundation, > that's a cartel created at despotic whim. There's no difference. > > > Ironically enough, trade secret is the only form of intellectual > > > property that I cited which doesn't create an asset, in the sense that > > > it doesn't create any tradable right like copyright or patent. > > > > Trade secrets are routinely traded in the US, by means of contracts > > and NDAs. > > No, the secrecy of trade secrets is maintained by means of these > mechanisms. No difference there either. -- .''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield : :' : http://www.debian.org/ | `. `' | `- -><- |
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
