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

Re: microsoft vs opensource

On Mon, Mar 03, 2008 at 07:01:19PM -0600, cothrige wrote:
> Miles Fidelman <mfidelman@meetinghouse.net> 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.



Reply to: