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.