3 ms·

You missed the entire point. Software uses patents, so people literally can't imitate others' works like some artists do. And that's the problem with over-gener

by cm127 12y ago

You missed the entire point. Software uses patents, so people literally can't imitate others' works like some artists do. And that's the problem with over-generalization: it's a useless abstraction that doesn't generalize well.

macspoofing 12y ago
>You missed the entire point. Software uses patents, I haven't, I just didn't focus on software patents because software patents are just one niche within the larger "Intellectual Property" framework. Even if you get rid of software patents, and I can be convinced either way, you're still left with patents in general, and copyright. >And that's the problem with over-generalization IP? I think it's a useful abstraction. Patents, software or otherwise, trademarks and copyright all are rooted in the same ideology. Giving a content creator a conditional exclusive right of distribution of a creative work.
- cm127 12y ago
  You did miss the point. Read the article. It's about how all IP is not the same because they originated from different places and they do different things. For example, software uses patents. That's not just a niche, that's an entire category of IP. Copyright is also an entire category that artists use to "protect" their work. But what kind of protection? It's different between patent and copyright, so just saying I have IP rights, is as vague as you can possible be because you don't have them all - just some.
  - dragonwriter 12y ago
    > so just saying I have IP rights, is as vague as you can possible be No, its not, because you could say "I have intangible personal property rights" or "I have personal property rights", or "I have property rights", each of which is vaguer than "I have IP rights", as IP is a strict subset of intangible personal property, which is itself a strict subset of personal property, etc.

3 ms·

You missed the entire point. Software uses patents, so people literally can't imitate others' works like some artists do. And that's the problem with over-gener

by cm127 12y ago

macspoofing 12y ago
>You missed the entire point. Software uses patents, I haven't, I just didn't focus on software patents because software patents are just one niche within the larger "Intellectual Property" framework. Even if you get rid of software patents, and I can be convinced either way, you're still left with patents in general, and copyright. >And that's the problem with over-generalization IP? I think it's a useful abstraction. Patents, software or otherwise, trademarks and copyright all are rooted in the same ideology. Giving a content creator a conditional exclusive right of distribution of a creative work.
- cm127 12y ago
  You did miss the point. Read the article. It's about how all IP is not the same because they originated from different places and they do different things. For example, software uses patents. That's not just a niche, that's an entire category of IP. Copyright is also an entire category that artists use to "protect" their work. But what kind of protection? It's different between patent and copyright, so just saying I have IP rights, is as vague as you can possible be because you don't have them all - just some.
  - dragonwriter 12y ago
    > so just saying I have IP rights, is as vague as you can possible be No, its not, because you could say "I have intangible personal property rights" or "I have personal property rights", or "I have property rights", each of which is vaguer than "I have IP rights", as IP is a strict subset of intangible personal property, which is itself a strict subset of personal property, etc.