This distinction simply does not hold in this area of the law . Look at the action in genetics the last few years. If you want an area to generate a debate on how things should be done this is certainly one.
There has not been so much given to "discoverers" since the "discovery" and exploration (or was it theft) of the the new world. IP generated a mob rush to get basic research done in order to "own" genetic information the result of which we will be paying for years in confiscatory pricing. All the folks living on $2 a day (half the planet), will be "have nots" in another area and the rest of us will see greater portions of our resources swallowed by medical treatment costs. Of course, much of the research was funded publically.
Also, a real "idea" is not natural and rare indeed. Most of us, I fear, never have one.(except you Frank)
Such ideas are just what IP is intended to protect.Cheers
Craig Ryder
IP
One last thing.
IP can operate well but it can also do great harm. Another good example to look at, if you want to understand how this law works in the real world and more fitting for this board, is electricity at the turn of the century in the U.S. Read the story of Tesla, Edison, GE, Westinghouse, J.P. Morgan (who at that time operated as the Federal Reserve of the US and wanted to own eletricity) if you have not already.
What's that they say about law and sausage?
Cheers
Craig Ryder
One last thing.
IP can operate well but it can also do great harm. Another good example to look at, if you want to understand how this law works in the real world and more fitting for this board, is electricity at the turn of the century in the U.S. Read the story of Tesla, Edison, GE, Westinghouse, J.P. Morgan (who at that time operated as the Federal Reserve of the US and wanted to own eletricity) if you have not already.
What's that they say about law and sausage?
Cheers
Craig Ryder
peranders said:
Processes have been patented. OFC cable is made by several mfg, but they may all have different ways of making it. If yet another fab figures out a new way to do it, they could patent it, provided it was different enough from the other methods.
Recently, there was a fear that one (small) company may actually enforce a patent over JPEG compression. I don't know how that is progressing but I'll go out on a limb and say that it has little chance of succeeding since the "owners" left the process in the public domain for years without a complaint. There was even talk of one of the big companies buying the little entity outright in order to kill the complaint.
I believe GIF is an invention owned by AOL and originally given free to AOL members as a way of transporting images with low bandwidth usage. I do not know if GIF is patented, but it certainly qualifies, provided it was patented before being given away into the public domain.
I don't know about LZW, but I do know that Photoshop uses it for TIFF compression. Check out the different patent numbers listed by Adobe in the PS welcome screen and maybe one of them is for LZW...
ensen.
Ryder said:
You are right about this, but I don't think it is the law at fault. The technology has progressed so quickly that the various patent registries could not hire quickly enough to keep up.
Granting a patent to a piece of existing genetic code actually contravenes the basic principles of patent law. I'll bet that the patents are for the various processes of isolating the specific piece of code for which the technology only provides one way for each piece. If you could provide a micro-micro-scope to see the code and isolate it with a micro-micro-knife, then you would have gotten around such a patent.
Another area of contention is the patenting of business processes. Yes, while these are processes, some of them a just plain obvious. Some have even been done for years by other companies. The question to ask is what is considered public domain. If I learn a new method of accounting at one firm and join a different company where I use it to enhance my career have I disclosed intellectual property. The question is whether my second employer is competing with the first. If not, which is likely since may firms require a non-compete agreement, then there is no infringement, regardless of whether I took the IP.
The one-click purchasing battle is a special case. Usually, when a patent is granted, several different configurations are "claimed" by the applicant. If I patent a method of purchasing products on the internet by forcing users to click on 3 buttons, then it is usual to deny patents for processes that use only 2 buttons. That may be more efficient, but not novel. If I ask them to drag 3 sliders, then I may be doing something new and may qualify. I believe that the one-click patent will eventually be found invalid or unenforceable.
ensen.
Not a lawyer...
It should be noted that I'm not a legal expert on intellectual property. I am a designer whose job involves being a liaison with the company patent lawyer. Just to have meaningful conversations with the attorney, I've had to brush up on the basics at the USPTO, CIPO and the EPO. As you can tell, the basics are not that simple. I'd hate to be on the fighting end of any patent.
ensen.
It should be noted that I'm not a legal expert on intellectual property. I am a designer whose job involves being a liaison with the company patent lawyer. Just to have meaningful conversations with the attorney, I've had to brush up on the basics at the USPTO, CIPO and the EPO. As you can tell, the basics are not that simple. I'd hate to be on the fighting end of any patent.
ensen.I see some changes in the near future on this and other things. There is a generation coming that see their access to this property as their given right to do with as they see fit. 90% of my daughters classmates feel it is okay for them to download all the music they want without paying for any of it. One day the world will be a bunch of ali babas and the aliens will never make contact with us.
If there had not been dilution in the quality of the patent granting process, there would be a greater respect for intellectual property.
All the recent incidents of entire classes being flunked for plagiarism are also an indication of this change wrt intellectual property. This same disrespect for the value of the original creation is shown again and again in the push for cheaper and cheaper consumer goods. At some point, there will be no money left for R&D and our society will suffer for it.
Of course, not all the blame lies with consumers. In general, corporate and academic organizations fail to reward creativity with enough recognition or money and so we get an overall "cheapening" of the value of original work. Only Wall Street has continued to "gamble" on the new and improved, hence the increased phenomenon of quickly building a company, then having an IPO.
There is hope. These same kids who expect free music will one day have to figure out how to make a living from their creativity, whether it is art or science.
ensen.
All the recent incidents of entire classes being flunked for plagiarism are also an indication of this change wrt intellectual property. This same disrespect for the value of the original creation is shown again and again in the push for cheaper and cheaper consumer goods. At some point, there will be no money left for R&D and our society will suffer for it.
Of course, not all the blame lies with consumers. In general, corporate and academic organizations fail to reward creativity with enough recognition or money and so we get an overall "cheapening" of the value of original work. Only Wall Street has continued to "gamble" on the new and improved, hence the increased phenomenon of quickly building a company, then having an IPO.
There is hope. These same kids who expect free music will one day have to figure out how to make a living from their creativity, whether it is art or science.
ensen.
Hello, a couple of years ago I bought an amplifier kit( well, it was more like 2x pcb + documentation over the internet). I built that amp, had it for a few months and then let it go.
Now, based on that schematic , I want to design my own boards, personal use for an active speaker project . I am not going to lie , I would use somehow the original layout for my board. The pcb will be created in dip trace or other program .
The designer of this amp still sells some similar amps but this one is not longer sold because one main component was discontinued by the Semiconductor Company.
I would like to know your thoughts about this, is it legal , moral , not cool?
Thanks,
Gabe
Now, based on that schematic , I want to design my own boards, personal use for an active speaker project . I am not going to lie , I would use somehow the original layout for my board. The pcb will be created in dip trace or other program .
The designer of this amp still sells some similar amps but this one is not longer sold because one main component was discontinued by the Semiconductor Company.
I would like to know your thoughts about this, is it legal , moral , not cool?
Thanks,
Gabe
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.