4 ms·
IANAL but I think prior art is a reason to exclude patents, not copyright. All IP is not the same.
by JackFr 7y ago
IANAL but I think prior art is a reason to exclude patents, not copyright.
All IP is not the same.
- icebraining 7y agoYes and no. The idea is that the MTA is claiming that it must be derived from their map, since its style is so similar; by showing there were similar maps made before, the argument becomes less credible.
- jordigh 7y agoThe point is that "prior art" is a term of art, unapplicable to copyright.
- jordigh 7y agoIn fact, all IP is quite different, to the point that even calling it "IP" leads to a lot of confusion thinking that it's at all similar.
- wizzwizz4 7y agoObligatory Stallman essay: “Did You Say “Intellectual Property”? It's a Seductive Mirage” https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/not-ipr.html https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/not-ipr.html