[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: microsoft vs opensource

steef wrote:
Miles Fidelman wrote:
steef wrote:

is there somebody out there who knows the (juridical) implications of the kind of "intellectual property" when somebody is going into the bush and tries to patent - (and gets this patent indeed) - a very valuable indigenous procedée before a court in the Western world without the consent of the people who developed that procedée over centuries? Is that different, or not, from patenting a very valuable script without the consent of the programmer of this software? As far as i understand that is where MS often is after.
yup - they're called lawyers (or less polite terms, depending on who they're working for and how honorable or dishonorable the intentions of their clients)
i understand that. maybe i did not put my question right. i should like a short answer that concerns the content/heart of this matter.
There is no short answer. There are those who try to patent, copyright, or otherwise lock up the rights to things - for lots of different reasons; there are those who try to circumvent intellectual property restrictions; there are those who believe that such restrictions are morally right or wrong; and there's lots of law, regulation, and politics to go around. The policy and legal battles are ongoing and complicated. Every individual situation is different.

If you're looking at what to do in a specific instance - be it writing a license, challenging a patent, being sued, fighting a suit, sharing music (or stealing it, depending on who you're talking to) - the options and best path (if any) are specific to the situation, the individuals and organizations involved, and what countr(ies) the parties are in. And the outcome will be unclear - courts and regulators are notoriously unpredictable - though whomever has the deeper pockets has a good chance of prevailing.

If you're looking at influencing policy - it gets even more complicated.

Reply to: