3 ms·
IP theft easily satisfies the quoted definition in your first paragraph. That’s why you had to add an additional “key difference” in your last paragraph. That
by snowwrestler 5y ago
IP theft easily satisfies the quoted definition in your first paragraph. That’s why you had to add an additional “key difference” in your last paragraph.
That “key difference” is what got invented in the early 2000s as part of a concerted effort to justify IP theft. It was never part of the definition of theft before, and indeed it makes no sense; if you steal a Snickers bar from a store, you have not deprived them of the use of the Snickers bar because they never intended to use it themselves. What you have really deprived them of is the opportunity to sell it. So does stealing IP.
- markdown 5y agoStealing a part made in a shop isn't stealing IP. Stealing schematics and methods would be, but not finished products.
- irjustin 5y agoAnd it's not stealing in the strictest sense. it was sold. The manufacturer of the chip made an extra 10k of product to sell on the side, which is a breach of contract. But no theft occurred because the manufacturer is supposed to have the schematics. Legally a rather annoying, wordy space to live in for sure.
- ngc248 5y agoHow is this not stealing ... Its like i gave you money/raw materials to do something for me. you skim off it and sell it off it is stealing. May not be a legally valid term, but it is stealing.
- dragonwriter 5y ago> Stealing a part made in a shop isn't stealing IP. Stealing schematics and methods would be, but not finished products. Actually, all of that is stealing physical, not intellectual property. Intellectual property is not the right to physical possession, so even to the extent that it can be said to be “stolen” (violation of IP rights are more like trespass than theft) taking physical objects in which it is in one form or another embodied into one’s possession isn’t it.