+1 (01)
A person who post something saying "I don't want anyone else to write
about this until I get a chance to do it" , is too silly to be taken
seriously. (02)
Plagerism is frowned on but once you borrow from 2 sources, I think it
is called research.
I don't believe that copyright protects one from having people make
reasonable quotes with attribution and paraphrasing with few restrictions. (03)
Ron (04)
Toby Considine wrote:
> Of course, while IANAL, I believe the litigated standard is that the
> legal standing of an email footer read after you have already read the
> document is null.
>
> ------------- Legal Footnote ------------------
> "Any ideas accidentally divulged in this email are not just my
> personal property, but may be taboo in your jurisdiction. Please
> forward legal fees to me immediately or, because of the taboo thing,
> pluck out your own eyes as indicated by the relevant customs."
>
>
>
>
> On Tue, May 6, 2008 at 3:07 PM, Ed Barkmeyer <edbark@xxxxxxxx
> <mailto:edbark@xxxxxxxx>> wrote:
>
> Ken Laskey wrote:
>
> > The problem with IPR is similar to the age-old academics feuds
> of who
> > came up with what first.
>
> Ah, if only that were the issue.
>
> The age-old academic feuds were about getting peer recognition and
> credit for the work or the idea. Academics had no expectation of
> significant income from their ideas -- the best they could hope
> for was
> increased sales of their books.
>
> Modern IPR in industrial communities is about using a form of
> "copyright" as a substitute for "patent", and the expectation is that
> "license" will/may produce significant income for someone, or keep
> others out of a domain in which the person/firm hopes to produce a
> product that will generate significant income.
>
> This difference in motivation is key to understanding why IPR is a big
> deal. It is not about getting credit for an idea, it is about who
> makes
> the money on the idea.
>
> License for copyrighted material used to be about reproduction,
> because
> that was the means of dissemination and therefore the means of making
> money on it. But we can no longer easily control the reproduction of
> any representations of ideas or artistic contributions because the
> physical medium is publicly accessible and cheap. So the artistic
> professions are busy inventing artificial legal controls on the
> dissemination rather than the reproduction.
>
> But somehow, in IT and then other engineering and scientific
> communities, we have turned these artificial controls into a new legal
> concept -- "intellectual property rights". When we talk about IPR, we
> are talking about "owning a concept", not just the right to
> reproduce a
> particular representation. And traditionally, ownership of a concept
> that has commercial value is the domain of *patent*. Patent is about
> owning the use of an idea in a device for a particular purpose.
> And to
> get a patent, you have to demonstrate that the idea is new, the
> application to the purpose is new, or the mechanism of use of the idea
> in the device is radically different from any other device for the
> purpose. You don't just assert that you had the concept first; you
> demonstrate that you used that advantage in time to create the first
> useful application.
>
> Instead of using patent intelligently and being more careful about our
> information leakage, we have created a field day for the lawyers. We
> are trying to shortcut the patent process by claiming ownership of an
> idea based solely on publication of the concept, without having to
> have
> an associated product design and a feasibility demonstration. And
> in so
> doing, we are trying to patent ideas instead of uses of ideas,
> concepts
> instead of designs.
>
> Artists don't copyright concepts; they copyright performances and
> works.
> Authors don't copyright ideas; they copyright their presentation of
> them. And engineers don't patent concepts; they patent designs that
> demonstrate the use of them.
>
> But now we have "intellectual property rights" -- ownership of ideas.
> And we should all be very afraid.
>
> > You don't want to overly limit what can be
> > brought into a discussion ...
>
> That depends on who "you" is. In engineering communities, if you are
> developing product designs, you don't bring your ideas to public
> forums
> until after you have made the patent applications. And if that is
> what
> you are doing, you don't contribute to the public forums anything more
> than is needed to accomplish whatever your objective in participation
> is. It's a different world, and joint engineering activities have
> very
> careful disclosure rules, in order to avoid compromising
> patentable designs.
>
> > For Ontolog, we exchange ideas and if anyone feels infringed upon,
> > the recourse would seem to follow the traditional academic paths.
>
> It would, if we didn't need lawyers to protect those paths.
> We are hiring lawyers and developing IPR rules to protect the free
> academic exchange of ideas from the misguided and the conniving and
> their lawyers. That is, we are protecting our academic exchange from
> intruders who do not have the academic mindset.
>
> > If people feel there is a need to make disclosure statements
> that are
> > readily available for others to find, we may need to consider such a
> > process.
>
> If people feel the need to "make disclosure statements", to the effect
> that a given email contains licensed intellectual property, as
> distinct
> from simply citing a published work, further discussion of the
> topic in
> question should terminate instantly, and the viability of the forum is
> in doubt. And yes, if we start to see that kind of thing as a regular
> occurrence, "free academic exchange" will be a thing of the past.
>
> -Ed
>
> P.S. I apologize for the soapbox performance, but I view the current
> legal work on IP with great alarm. Maybe, once enough lawyers
> have been
> paid to craft the language under which we can continue doing
> business as
> usual in tripartite (industry/academe/government) communities, the
> whole
> magilla will blow over. But "I pray thee, put in to yonder port,
> for I
> fear a hurricane."
>
> P.P.S. This is NOT a NIST position. It is mine. (And I hope I'm too
> late to claim the IPR.)
>
> --
> Edward J. Barkmeyer Email: edbark@xxxxxxxx
> <mailto:edbark@xxxxxxxx>
> National Institute of Standards & Technology
> Manufacturing Systems Integration Division
> 100 Bureau Drive, Stop 8263 Tel: +1 301-975-3528
> Gaithersburg, MD 20899-8263 FAX: +1 301-975-4694
>
> "The opinions expressed above do not reflect consensus of NIST,
> and have not been reviewed by any Government authority."
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> Message Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontolog-forum/
> Subscribe/Config:
> http://ontolog.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/ontolog-forum/
> Unsubscribe: mailto:ontolog-forum-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> <mailto:ontolog-forum-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Shared Files: http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/
> Community Wiki: http://ontolog.cim3.net/wiki/
> To Post: mailto:ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> <mailto:ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>
>
>
>
> --
> ________________________________________
> "When one door closes, another opens; but we often look so long and so
> regretfully upon the closed door that we do not see the one which has
> opened for us." -- Alexander Graham Bell
> ________________________________________
> Toby Considine
> Chair, OASIS oBIX TC http://www.oasis-open.org
> Toby.Considine@xxxxxxxxx <mailto:Toby.Considine@xxxxxxxxx>
> Phone: (919)619-2104
> blog: www.NewDaedalus.com <http://www.NewDaedalus.com>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> Message Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontolog-forum/
> Subscribe/Config: http://ontolog.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/ontolog-forum/
> Unsubscribe: mailto:ontolog-forum-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Shared Files: http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/
> Community Wiki: http://ontolog.cim3.net/wiki/
> To Post: mailto:ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>
> (05)
_________________________________________________________________
Message Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontolog-forum/
Subscribe/Config: http://ontolog.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/ontolog-forum/
Unsubscribe: mailto:ontolog-forum-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Shared Files: http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/
Community Wiki: http://ontolog.cim3.net/wiki/
To Post: mailto:ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (06)
|