3 ms·

It seems to me that lphilips54 is trying to achieve with a license what we would need a patent for. (He speaks of his algorithm)

RexRollman 12y ago
Exactly. Copyright doesn't do what he thinks it does.
masklinn 12y ago
Note that he has a patent on metaphone3.
- bchociej 12y ago
  Can you link to that? I've only been able to find rejected applications so far.
- mikhailt 12y ago
  As far as anybody can tell and based on his comments, no he doesn't have any patents. He mistakenly thought his algorithm was copyrighted and algorithms are not copyrightable in US and generally in many countries around the globe.
code_duck 12y ago
It's surprising how little understanding the average person has of the 3 major types of IP registration. Most people I know working in creative and artistic fields could not tell you the difference between a copyright, patent and trademark.
- vacri 12y ago
  Why surprising? They're all very abstract concepts, and most artists outside the tech field don't have a use for patents or trademarks.
  - code_duck 12y ago
    I often have observed issues involving people who believe they or others own processes, algorithms and names, or that others have exclusive right to such in the visual and tangible art fields. It's quite important to understand what rights people have when they start asserting rights. For instance, a bead maker claiming that they have a 'copyright' on a certain style of glass bead which they seem to think involves a combination of the name, process and result. People use (mis) understandings of IP to intimidate others into not competing with them, despite not understanding what rights they actually have or don't have. The intended audience, other artists, don't understand what rights they or the claimant actually have, either. The main lack of understanding I see is a) that processes cannot be covered by copyright and b) names are not covered by copyright.

RexRollman 12y ago

Exactly. Copyright doesn't do what he thinks it does.

masklinn 12y ago

Note that he has a patent on metaphone3.

bchociej 12y ago
Can you link to that? I've only been able to find rejected applications so far.
mikhailt 12y ago
As far as anybody can tell and based on his comments, no he doesn't have any patents. He mistakenly thought his algorithm was copyrighted and algorithms are not copyrightable in US and generally in many countries around the globe.

code_duck 12y ago

It's surprising how little understanding the average person has of the 3 major types of IP registration. Most people I know working in creative and artistic fields could not tell you the difference between a copyright, patent and trademark.

vacri 12y ago
Why surprising? They're all very abstract concepts, and most artists outside the tech field don't have a use for patents or trademarks.
- code_duck 12y ago
  I often have observed issues involving people who believe they or others own processes, algorithms and names, or that others have exclusive right to such in the visual and tangible art fields. It's quite important to understand what rights people have when they start asserting rights. For instance, a bead maker claiming that they have a 'copyright' on a certain style of glass bead which they seem to think involves a combination of the name, process and result. People use (mis) understandings of IP to intimidate others into not competing with them, despite not understanding what rights they actually have or don't have. The intended audience, other artists, don't understand what rights they or the claimant actually have, either. The main lack of understanding I see is a) that processes cannot be covered by copyright and b) names are not covered by copyright.