Subject:
|
Re: Intolerance and property rights
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Sun, 12 Mar 2000 12:26:21 GMT
|
Reply-To:
|
lpieniazek@novera&stopspam&.com
|
Viewed:
|
1510 times
|
| |
|
|
Frank Filz wrote:
> I'm a bit curious as to how patents fit into this scheme. One the one hand,
> it is clearly good to protect the investment that went into an invention
> (both "dollars" and the investment of self, which of course all is
> "property"). On the other hand, a patent seems to deny someone else the
> permission to make the same investment and make the same invention.
This came up before and I don't have a satisfactory answer. I think one
is out there, I just haven't taken the time to catalog all the
stakeholders and determine their rights.
My knee jerk was that IP *is* property. So you have the right not to
have someone copy your invention without doing the work you did to
invent it. But they can cleanroom it, as long as the chain is
unbroken... no cheating.
Dunno if that works, I think Jasper was in the process of ripping it to
shreds last he was heard from in these parts, and I am too lazy to go
look up the thread.
--
Larry Pieniazek - lpieniazek@mercator.com - http://my.voyager.net/lar
http://www.mercator.com. Mercator, the e-business transformation company
fund Lugnet(tm): http://www.ebates.com/ ref: lar, 1/2 $$ to lugnet.
Note: this is a family forum!
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Intolerance and property rights
|
| Larry Pieniazek wrote in message <38C99133.A47A4F64@v...er.net>... (...) I'm a bit curious as to how patents fit into this scheme. One the one hand, it is clearly good to protect the investment that went into an invention (both "dollars" and the (...) (25 years ago, 11-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
541 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
