On Mon, Mar 03, 2008 at 07:01:19PM -0600, cothrige wrote: > Miles Fidelman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > There's a difference between: > > > > - what makes sense (for some definition of "makes sense") > > > > - what's "right" (for some definition "right") > > > > - the legal and regulatory issues involved (there's a lot of dispute > > about whether software should be patentable, copyrightable, both, > > neither) > > I don't disagree with any of this. But, neither do I disagree with > those who point out that "intellectual property" can be a confusing > term. Yes, people use it, including lawmakers and lawyers. But, when > one gets down to the facts more specific issues will always be in > discussion, whether it be copyright, trademark, patent or whatever. > > > If you want to engage in masturbatory conversation, you can pick the > > terminology you like. If you want to understand what's going on, > > write software licenses, and/or influence policy - then you have to > > understand and use the terminology the lawyers, politicians, and > > lobbyists use. > > I agree. If you design and build the perfect mousetrap then you should > file for a patent. Not doing so, and then later trying to sue others > who build their own because you thought you had a copyright may not work > out too well. Likewise, deciding to reprint Stephen King's Carrie in > full because a patent runs out in 20 years is more than likely going to > be a really big whoops.
http://legalpad.blogs.fortune.cnn.com/2008/02/28/ending-software-patents-has-the-time-come/ http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20080228-patent-reform-coalition-aims-to-abolish-software-patents.html http://endsoftpatents.org/ -- Chris. ====== -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
