Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: geode00 who wrote (169888)	8/26/2005 12:01:10 AM
From: Sun Tzu	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

Sorry G, but this doesn't seem to be an area you can give informed opinion about. We have different categories of "IP" and you are mixing them. In reverse order of legal protection they are: Industrial Design Trade Mark Copyright Patent Each category was made for a purpose and they way you are mixing and matching them is foul play. You can disagree with my point about Disney all you want. But the purpose of copyright legislation is clearly stated and you are not on the right side of the law. As it stands, the law was meant to induce innovation. If you have a problem with that, then you have to change the law. Unlike Mickey, Green Giant is a trade mark. BTW, just so that you know, ideas are public domain. You cannot patent or copyright an idea nor can you make money off it. I cannot for example patent the idea of radiotherapy as a cancer cure. What I can do is to build a machine for the purpose of radiotherapy and patent the machine, but not the idea of radiotherapy. Someone else can then build a better machine and patent his. The process was meant to motivate investment in innovations. ST