3 ms·
This definition is almost explicitly crafted to make IP seem worthless. Information that requires investment to gain is considered valuable. This argument is b
by hiptobecubic 5y ago
This definition is almost explicitly crafted to make IP seem worthless.
Information that requires investment to gain is considered valuable. This argument is basically "any job that isn't physical manufacturing should not be paid, since the ideas only spread instead of move."
Oh you spent $500m developing a novel cognitive treatment for ptsd and proving it works better than sota? Humanity thanks you! Enjoy your total loss."
Oh you wrote a book? Hopefully it wasn't a book on business building, since you'll be earning nothing for your effort.
Oh you're a consultant? How charitable of you!
- toopok4k3 5y agoYou seem to lack the simplest terms when talking of IP laws. Copyright is something you infringe. You don't even say what you are referring to here by talking of "IP". The important stuff is always in details. There's a large amount of misinformation and people lacking an understanding on the differences between copyright, patents and trademarks. Making these threads repetitive to read. Always such a pointless anecdotes such as yours, truncating all IP systems under "IP laws". For example. The patent system came to existence to ensure that inventions were not hidden, but published to the public in a form patent. Instead of the inventor hiding the invention, the society grants the inventor sole rights to the invention thanks to them making it public. Copyright and Trademark are different beasts to Patents, and all these are very linked to the laws of single countries, bar signed treaties. Please distinguish what you are talking about. Otherwise your point is moot.