Re: microsoft vs opensource
---- Original Message ----
From: cothrige@bellsouth.net
To: debian-user@lists.debian.org
Subject: Re: microsoft vs opensource
Date: Mon, 03 Mar 2008 10:52:51 -0600
>Miles Fidelman <mfidelman@meetinghouse.net> writes:
>> Tzafrir Cohen wrote:
>>> I know about copyrights laws. I know about patent laws. I know
>about
>>> trademarks. I know about property laws. I know of contract laws. I
>>> am not aware of any intelectual property laws.
>>>
>> "intellectual property law" = patent law + copyright law +
>trademark
>> law + some related fields
>>
>> These days you see a lot of law firms describe themselves as
>> "intellectual property practices"
>
>I do think the term "intellectual property" is commonly used to
>describe
>a large array of legal concepts, but it isn't, AFAIK, a legal term
>applying to specific laws.
It is used internationally, in many languages, enough to be
understood.
This applies within the courtroom environment also.
The only roadblock would appear to be pedantry
There is copyright law, contract law,
>patent
>law, trademark law, and so on, but they are not one and the same and
>they do not operate together in some manner. Some have also made
>some
>rather convincing arguments, IMO, that these legal concepts above are
>really too disparate to be clumped together with such an umbrella
>term
>at all.
A quantum leap of some considerable degree.
Copyright and patent law, in many national environments, are not only
closely related, but almost indistinguishable.
This brings an inherent danger as a judgement within the one
environment may well provide precedent (which all judges employ in
deciding appropriate penaltys) within the other.
The ever persistent issue of software patents for example, when
dealing with programming - which is essentially a language - and
shouldn't, as a means of transmission of knowledge, even have
copyright attached to it.
Where is your yawning gulf there?
So, for these reasons, I think it is entirely honest and
>correct
?
to say that there are no "intellectual property" laws, and
>also
>to describe the use of that term as "confusing" as the earlier post
>did.
The only thing that could be classified as confusing, is the initial
spelling - 'intelectual', which may well be all the O.P. was
referring to.
Regards,
David Palmer.
Reply to: