 | | Re: Pastel = Profit (Was Re: 2000 Dealer catalogue Removal Request Backfire?)) —Christopher L. Weeks
|
| | | (...) Hi Frank, Actually, the reasoning for why your property is safe while I'm in your apartment falls under both my contract and aesthetics categories. When I refer to contracts in a broad sense I don't just mean reams of legalese with hundreds of (...) (25 years ago, 10-Dec-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | |
| | | | | Re: Pastel = Profit (Was Re: 2000 Dealer catalogue Removal Request Backfire?)) —Frank Filz
|
| | | | | (...) One interesting question is how does one determine that someone has accepted an implied or understood contract? (...) Ok, now how are TLC's intellectual property rights different from the property rights of me for my LEGO collection? Or is the (...) (25 years ago, 10-Dec-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | | | Re: Pastel = Profit (Was Re: 2000 Dealer catalogue Removal Request Backfire?)) —Christopher L. Weeks
|
| | | | | | (...) Sometimes that's hard. Misunderstandings and differing expectations happen all the time and largely it's because of different world-view which is kind of the same as having accepted different implied contracts. I (sort of) keep track of what (...) (25 years ago, 10-Dec-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | Re: Pastel = Profit (Was Re: 2000 Dealer catalogue Removal Request Backfire?)) —Todd Lehman
|
| | | | (...) I'm curious: Do you consider intellectual property rights to be a subset of property rights, or something totally separate? The original issue, I think, was at least partially about intellectual property rights. --Todd (25 years ago, 10-Dec-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | |
