On Fri, Jan 07, 2005 at 09:26:16AM -0800, Michael K. Edwards wrote: > On Fri, 7 Jan 2005 11:04:21 +0000, Andrew Suffield <asuffield@debian.org> wrote: > > 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. > > No, the fact that there was no property right in works of authorship > in England prior to 1710 makes it valid Trivially false. <snip all arguments derived from this absurd claim> > > > That's not a legal foundation, > > > that's a cartel created at despotic whim. > > > > There's no difference. > > It made plenty of difference in the Donaldson case -- the court > declined to find a common-law copyright prior to the Statute of Anne, > precisely because despotic whim doesn't create law fit to be treated > as precedent. It's one thing to say, in a common-law country, "This previous law does not constitute a binding precendent on this court at this point in time". That's probably accurate at the time and completely irrelevant. Your argument was founded on "There was never a previous law (because I didn't like it)", which is nonsense. There was one and it was replaced. > > > > > 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. > > What part of "trade secret law doesn't create a tradable right" is > confusing? The part where it's false, and you try to relabel 'tradeable' as something else just to weasel out of it. <snip derived arguments again> -- .''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield : :' : http://www.debian.org/ | `. `' | `- -><- |
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature