4 ms·

> That suggests that intellectual property is even more deserving of protection than at least natural property No, you suggested this out of nothing. It actual

> That suggests that intellectual property is even more deserving of protection than at least natural property No, you suggested this out of nothing. It actually suggests the opposite, because protecting "intellectual property" takes away the freedom from other people to create it themselves as if they are somehow less deserving of something they created because they weren't the first ones to get that protection.

rayiner 7y ago
At least in the context of copyright, independent creation of something is not infringement.
- wolfgke 7y ago
  > At least in the context of copyright, independent creation of something is not infringement. The lines what is really counts as "independent" are deeply blurred.
- bediger4000 7y ago
  You can say this, but it's not really true. Courts have sliced away at the "independent creation" aspect until it exists in theory but not in practice.
  - rayiner 7y ago
    Courts have limited the degree to which you can leverage pre-existing characters, etc., but if you truly create your own thing without relying on the work of others, incidental similarity will not result in infringement. (Of course, incidental similarity might be evidence that you actually copied, instead of independently creating the work.)
    - bediger4000 7y ago
      It still has to go to trial to be determined. This is used as a punitive mechanism by prominent rightsholders. See the sad tales of Prenda Law, and Rightshaven. I'm not sure what the official term is in the case of "we assume X, but we'll have a trial to see if X is true", but the presumption is that whatever was copied, so it has to go to court. In combination with the "American Rule", that makes everyone shy away from coming too close to copying. You can lawyerly say what you want, the situation is that theoretically you can invent something yourself that's close or identical to some rightholder's ideas, but basically you're punished for it. SO stay away.

rayiner 7y ago

At least in the context of copyright, independent creation of something is not infringement.

wolfgke 7y ago
> At least in the context of copyright, independent creation of something is not infringement. The lines what is really counts as "independent" are deeply blurred.
bediger4000 7y ago
You can say this, but it's not really true. Courts have sliced away at the "independent creation" aspect until it exists in theory but not in practice.
- rayiner 7y ago
  Courts have limited the degree to which you can leverage pre-existing characters, etc., but if you truly create your own thing without relying on the work of others, incidental similarity will not result in infringement. (Of course, incidental similarity might be evidence that you actually copied, instead of independently creating the work.)
  - bediger4000 7y ago
    It still has to go to trial to be determined. This is used as a punitive mechanism by prominent rightsholders. See the sad tales of Prenda Law, and Rightshaven. I'm not sure what the official term is in the case of "we assume X, but we'll have a trial to see if X is true", but the presumption is that whatever was copied, so it has to go to court. In combination with the "American Rule", that makes everyone shy away from coming too close to copying. You can lawyerly say what you want, the situation is that theoretically you can invent something yourself that's close or identical to some rightholder's ideas, but basically you're punished for it. SO stay away.