4 ms·

Not only that, but those $80k could have paid for quite a few months of development, but instead those will be money going down the drain because of a broken ju

Not only that, but those $80k could have paid for quite a few months of development, but instead those will be money going down the drain because of a broken justice system. And they have the nerve to say that IP laws are fueling innovation.

ekianjo 12y ago
Trademark has barely anything to do with IP laws. You are referring to patents, and trademark legislation has nothing to do with patents.
- gavinballard 12y ago
  Trademarks are a form of intellectual property.
  - misterbishop 12y ago
    'Intellectual Property' is not a legal classification, and shouldn't be. Patents, Trademarks, Copyrights, and looser-defined 'trade secrets' all have distinct purposes. Saying "Intellectual Property" when you mean "Trademark" gives the impression that the holder has all kinds of legal protections which don't actually apply. Over the long term, there's danger that legal theories will change to further expand the rights of corporate publishers.
    - dragonwriter 12y ago
      > 'Intellectual Property' is not a legal classification, and shouldn't be. Intellectual Property isn't a classification defined in law, but it is an analytic classification used in law, the same way that various other subcategories of "property" are, to discuss related protections. ∀X : X ∈ { Copyright, Trademark, Patent, ... }, X ⊂ Intellectual Property ⊂ Intangible Personal Property ⊂ Personal Property ⊂ Property.
      - dalke 12y ago
        Those are not true subsets like you suggest. Consider that moral rights, which fall under intellectual property law, don't fit into the "property" category. For example, the "right [of the author] to prevent the destruction of a work of art if it is of 'recognized stature'" is not something which is true of anything I know of outside of creative works. In German law, the inventor of a patent has the right to a share of the profit even if developed as an employee of the company making the profit; again, something not shared with tangible property. I think of the relationship between "intellectual property" and "property" is more akin to "Pluto is a dwarf planet, but it's not a planet."
        dragonwriter 12y ago
        > Those are not true subsets like you suggest. Yes, they are. > Consider that moral rights, which fall under intellectual property law, don't fit into the "property" category. Moral rights absolutely fall under the property category. > For example, the "right [of the author] to prevent the destruction of a work of art if it is of 'recognized stature'" is not something which is true of anything I know of outside of creative works. Well, yes, the fact that element x is an element of set A and set A is a subset of set B, and set C is a subset of set B does not imply that x is an element of set C. The whole point of named subsets of property (and, named subsets as analytic categories in general) is that the names come from features that are shared within the named subset that are distinct from other subsets in the broader set. So, yes, Copyright has features that are dissimilar to Patent or Trademark, IP generally has features that are dissimilar to other intangible personal property, intangible personal property has features that are dissimilar to tangible personal property, and personal property generally has features that are dissimilar to real property.
        dalke 12y ago
        You are right. My examples were not valid counter examples. I think of a property right as something which is transferable. The two examples I gave were of rights that were not transferable. However, if "Personal Property" also includes non-transferable rights, then there's no conflict. As a clear counter-counter-example of why my counter-example is wrong, tenancy rights are part of real property law, and may or may not include succession rights. My comment then transforms to the (trivial) observation that intellectual property ⊄ real property.
    - deleted 12y ago
      [deleted]
- bad_user 12y ago
  Copyright, trademarks, patents, industrial design rights, trade dress, trade secrets are all lumped together under the intellectual property term. Yes, you can argue that the term itself is incorrect as property is used here in a way that contradicts the law itself, also lumping together different laws under the same umbrella, preventing rational discussions about specifics, but there you have it. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intellectual_property https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intellectual_property
- maxlybbert 12y ago
  I didn't see any comments that applied to patents (e.g., that they cover inventions, that they require the inventor to disclose all relevant details of the invention, that they have definite lifetimes, etc.), so while I agree with you and Stallman that it's important to be explicit about when you're talking about copyright, trade secrets, patents and trademarks, I don't think anybody's created any confusion yet. Besides, for amusement's sake, the USPTO stands for "United States Patent and Trademark Office."
  - ekianjo 12y ago
    > I didn't see any comments that applied to patents Well, when someone mentioned "fuel innovation", I assume they did not talk about trademarks, because trademarks have NOTHING to do with protecting innovation. That's what patents are for (in theory, while I don't agree with that, but that's a different topic).
    - maxlybbert 12y ago
      You're right: I had overlooked that statement.
Alphasite_ 12y ago
Well, without these IP laws GNOME wouldn't have any recourse, would they?
- deleted 12y ago
  [deleted]
- zanny 12y ago
  Without IP GNOME would not care. GNOME users would know not to associate Groupon with GNOME, and without IP you could call all your stuff anything you want, and that does not mean anything to anyone else, unless you manipulate people into seeing the wrong brand in the wrong place. IE, deception.
  - quadrangle 12y ago
    Your misunderstanding highlights why we need to demolish the term "Intellectual Property". Patents and Copyright stifle innovation and should be reformed or abolished. Trademark is essential consumer protection against fraud and manipulation and is extremely important to keep, although it needs to be fixed not to require prohibitive costs to defend one's trademark.
    - zanny 12y ago
      There was no misunderstanding. Trademarks, as you yourself have said, are also an exploitative tool of abuse by entrenched interests. Impersonation and slander should still be illegal, but the claiming of ownership of a name is only rife for abuse. I'm against IP in general.

ekianjo 12y ago

Trademark has barely anything to do with IP laws. You are referring to patents, and trademark legislation has nothing to do with patents.

gavinballard 12y ago
Trademarks are a form of intellectual property.
- misterbishop 12y ago
  'Intellectual Property' is not a legal classification, and shouldn't be. Patents, Trademarks, Copyrights, and looser-defined 'trade secrets' all have distinct purposes. Saying "Intellectual Property" when you mean "Trademark" gives the impression that the holder has all kinds of legal protections which don't actually apply. Over the long term, there's danger that legal theories will change to further expand the rights of corporate publishers.
  - dragonwriter 12y ago
    > 'Intellectual Property' is not a legal classification, and shouldn't be. Intellectual Property isn't a classification defined in law, but it is an analytic classification used in law, the same way that various other subcategories of "property" are, to discuss related protections. ∀X : X ∈ { Copyright, Trademark, Patent, ... }, X ⊂ Intellectual Property ⊂ Intangible Personal Property ⊂ Personal Property ⊂ Property.
    - dalke 12y ago
      Those are not true subsets like you suggest. Consider that moral rights, which fall under intellectual property law, don't fit into the "property" category. For example, the "right [of the author] to prevent the destruction of a work of art if it is of 'recognized stature'" is not something which is true of anything I know of outside of creative works. In German law, the inventor of a patent has the right to a share of the profit even if developed as an employee of the company making the profit; again, something not shared with tangible property. I think of the relationship between "intellectual property" and "property" is more akin to "Pluto is a dwarf planet, but it's not a planet."
      - dragonwriter 12y ago
        > Those are not true subsets like you suggest. Yes, they are. > Consider that moral rights, which fall under intellectual property law, don't fit into the "property" category. Moral rights absolutely fall under the property category. > For example, the "right [of the author] to prevent the destruction of a work of art if it is of 'recognized stature'" is not something which is true of anything I know of outside of creative works. Well, yes, the fact that element x is an element of set A and set A is a subset of set B, and set C is a subset of set B does not imply that x is an element of set C. The whole point of named subsets of property (and, named subsets as analytic categories in general) is that the names come from features that are shared within the named subset that are distinct from other subsets in the broader set. So, yes, Copyright has features that are dissimilar to Patent or Trademark, IP generally has features that are dissimilar to other intangible personal property, intangible personal property has features that are dissimilar to tangible personal property, and personal property generally has features that are dissimilar to real property.
        dalke 12y ago
        You are right. My examples were not valid counter examples. I think of a property right as something which is transferable. The two examples I gave were of rights that were not transferable. However, if "Personal Property" also includes non-transferable rights, then there's no conflict. As a clear counter-counter-example of why my counter-example is wrong, tenancy rights are part of real property law, and may or may not include succession rights. My comment then transforms to the (trivial) observation that intellectual property ⊄ real property.
  - deleted 12y ago
    [deleted]
bad_user 12y ago
Copyright, trademarks, patents, industrial design rights, trade dress, trade secrets are all lumped together under the intellectual property term. Yes, you can argue that the term itself is incorrect as property is used here in a way that contradicts the law itself, also lumping together different laws under the same umbrella, preventing rational discussions about specifics, but there you have it. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intellectual_property https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intellectual_property
maxlybbert 12y ago
I didn't see any comments that applied to patents (e.g., that they cover inventions, that they require the inventor to disclose all relevant details of the invention, that they have definite lifetimes, etc.), so while I agree with you and Stallman that it's important to be explicit about when you're talking about copyright, trade secrets, patents and trademarks, I don't think anybody's created any confusion yet. Besides, for amusement's sake, the USPTO stands for "United States Patent and Trademark Office."
- ekianjo 12y ago
  > I didn't see any comments that applied to patents Well, when someone mentioned "fuel innovation", I assume they did not talk about trademarks, because trademarks have NOTHING to do with protecting innovation. That's what patents are for (in theory, while I don't agree with that, but that's a different topic).
  - maxlybbert 12y ago
    You're right: I had overlooked that statement.

Alphasite_ 12y ago

Well, without these IP laws GNOME wouldn't have any recourse, would they?

deleted 12y ago
[deleted]
zanny 12y ago
Without IP GNOME would not care. GNOME users would know not to associate Groupon with GNOME, and without IP you could call all your stuff anything you want, and that does not mean anything to anyone else, unless you manipulate people into seeing the wrong brand in the wrong place. IE, deception.
- quadrangle 12y ago
  Your misunderstanding highlights why we need to demolish the term "Intellectual Property". Patents and Copyright stifle innovation and should be reformed or abolished. Trademark is essential consumer protection against fraud and manipulation and is extremely important to keep, although it needs to be fixed not to require prohibitive costs to defend one's trademark.
  - zanny 12y ago
    There was no misunderstanding. Trademarks, as you yourself have said, are also an exploitative tool of abuse by entrenched interests. Impersonation and slander should still be illegal, but the claiming of ownership of a name is only rife for abuse. I'm against IP in general.