4 ms·
I agree that "Intellectual Property" isn't property per se. It's just too easy to re-invent a particular bit of "IP". I mean, I've done some of those on-line "
by bediger 15y ago
I agree that "Intellectual Property" isn't property per se.
It's just too easy to re-invent a particular bit of "IP". I mean, I've done some of those on-line "C Programming Interview Test Questions", and come up with something identical to the given answer, except for choice of variable names.
Independent invention just ruins "IP" as property.
- kbutler 15y agoIndependent creation only applies to copyright. If I independently write the same code as you, we both have copyright on it. Patents exclude independent invention. If we both invent the same thing and I have the patent, you cannot use your invention. Trademarks allow independent creation in separate geographic areas, but a pre-existing use can exclude an independent creation. This is one of the many reasons that "Intellectual Property" is a misnomer - the differences between copyrights and patents and trademarks are probably larger than the similarities.
- bediger 15y agoI agree with you on the distinction of copyright and patent with respect to independent invention. But that's just a human-made distinction, in the USA. Whoever wrote the laws didn't get independent invention enacted in patents. I also agree with your reason for "IP" as a misnomer. I wanted to speak in a general or philosophical sense. not in a legal, specific sense. The internally-inconsistent concept of "Intellectual Property" founders on the rock of independent invention, if you reason from first principles, rather than attempting to propagandize your way through to some kind of state-enforced monopoly.