3 ms·
I wasn’t making any point. Just that that the initial patent example isn’t a good one to use.
by master_crab 3y ago
I wasn’t making any point. Just that that the initial patent example isn’t a good one to use.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- bumby 3y agou/akira2501 was providing a bad equivalency by saying both the company and employee has knowledge of a product, therefore either both (or neither) gets to claim it as property. A patent is an example that shows why that is a bad principle. The point of a patent is to share knowledge, but it also gives claims of ownership (for a period) to only a specific party. So obviously "knowledge of a product/process" isn't the discriminator. The important portion of a patent that distinguishes what is owned is literally called its "claims." My point is that whether or not you have knowledge does not lay claim to ownership, contrary to u/akira2501's question/point.