4 ms·
> a system that allows a company Well that's your problem right there- you're under the impression that things are only legal if they're specifically allowed.
by evan_ 15y ago
> a system that allows a company
Well that's your problem right there- you're under the impression that things are only legal if they're specifically allowed. It's the other way around, though, isn't it?
Why shouldn't Microsoft be allowed to do this? What part of this should be illegal? Maybe you could call it racketeering but that's a stretch imho.
- guard-of-terra 15y agoThe intellectual property system that lets you sue your competitors because they are using your IP is a privilege. It's not a right. Not a human right. It's not in UN or otherwise ratified lists of human rights - right? And corporations aren't person anyway. So, it's a privilege, so the public does have the veto power. If it says, "no patent racketeering" - they don't do it or cease to exist as a legal business. The problem is that nobody is there to call the veto.
- kenjackson 15y agoI think you just stated this wrong. Read this: http://cyberlaw.stanford.edu/blogs/olson/archives/003331.shtml http://cyberlaw.stanford.edu/blogs/olson/archives/003331.sht... Just a different take on why IP is a natural right. The author gives a suggestion that we in software may want to heed: "stop calling it intellectual property". Maybe "intellectual discovery" instead?
- guard-of-terra 15y agoWhere are any links on intellectual property being human right? Patents aren't "in software". Patents are written by lawyers, for lawyers, and are obviously a property of kinds (can be sold without being a service).
- kenjackson 15y agoWow, my post read almost the complete opposite of what I intended. I meant to say that the author gives another argument for why IP is NOT a natural right. Spell checking is nice, but my main problem is writing the opposite of what I mean.