3 ms·

I thought we were talking about "harm to the owner" of some IP, not making the world "a better place for everyone." A judgment or evaluation of what would be "t

I thought we were talking about "harm to the owner" of some IP, not making the world "a better place for everyone." A judgment or evaluation of what would be "totally fine" ethically for the whole world is a different discussion, I think. I don't feel that the arguments you're presenting would be persuasive to the companies whose secrets are revealed. But, I may well be missing something. In any case, my takeaways from this discussion are: 1. You believe these companies don't have a solid legal case, that they cannot prove "harm" in the legal sense. 2. You believe that the system of protecting IP the US currently (in theory) embraces is sub-optimal for the well-being of the world.

geofft 8y ago
Okay, fine, rephrase "without harm to the owner" as "without injustice to the owner" if that helps make my comment more understandable. I grant that there is a sense of "harm" under which deposing a dictator from his comfortable life harms the dictator, even if he isn't punished and is allowed to start a new life as a private citizen, and that's not the sense of "harm" I mean. I don't think there's a way you can argue that deposing him would be an injustice towards him.