3 ms·
The whole purpose is to spur innovation, not allow for blatant copying. The point in contention is whether or not Beats innovated, or just copied. And please,
by diminoten 12y ago
The whole purpose is to spur innovation, not allow for blatant copying.
The point in contention is whether or not Beats innovated, or just copied.
And please, for the sake of intelligent discourse, don't say "the forefathers would have". It's so alarmingly meaningless and just strikes the conversation with a weird cultish vibe.
- briantakita 12y ago> The point in contention is whether or not Beats innovated, or just copied. Have you heard of derivative works? Are you aware of how derivative works have contributed to innovation throughout the course of human civilization?
- wtallis 12y agoWhat's your point here? That all derivative works are of equal value regardless of where they fall on the copying—innovation spectrum?
- georgemcbay 12y agoThe "forefathers" in the US weren't mystical, but real people (like Thomas Jefferson) who wrote real documents describing their concern with the potential negative impact of patent law abuse due to the harm monopolies cause. People who, while they eventually accepted the idea of patents as being positive if highly restrained, were vocally outspoken against many of the ways patent law could potentially be twisted (as it now has become at the hands of the modern corporation and IP law firms). See, for example: http://www.temple.edu/lawschool/dpost/mcphersonletter.html http://www.temple.edu/lawschool/dpost/mcphersonletter.html