Dan Merkel wrote:
"Greg Procter" <procter at (no spam) ihug.co.nz> wrote in message
news:487FA7F7.C3B76677 at (no spam) ihug.co.nz...
Dan Merkel wrote:
"mark" <whitroth at (no spam) rcn.com> wrote in message
news:ucCdnapqOqMoCOPVnZ2dnUVZ_rmdnZ2d at (no spam) rcn.net...
Wolf Kirchmeir wrote:
mark wrote:
[...]
On the other hand, are you suggesting that it should be in
perpetuity?
There's a lot of problems with that, including when your 100+
great-grandchildren get to arguing as to who gets how much. And
why
*should* they get money for something they've done nothing to
earn?
[...]
IOW, you're arguing that inheritance of property is immoral. H'mmm.
Red herring, anyhow. Ownership depends on how the testator's will
assigns it.
Just that there should be limits. Unless you really want your
daughter
or
granddaughter to be the next Paris Hilton?
mark *all* of my kids are earning their own way, and I'm
proud of them"
But what happens when your creation is a product? Aren't you then
suggesting that at some point, Coca-Cola should no longer have
exclusive
rights to their own formula? Or that some other soft drink company
should
be able to freely duplicate it and sell it at a lesser price?
Of course some other company can reproduce Coca Cola's formula. If it
was reproduced exactly the same then Coca Cola could take the other
company to court, nation by nation.
However, the copying company needs only alter one component/ingredient
by a tiny amount and it would no longer be "copying". For that reason,
Coca Cola maintains extreme secrecy on it's formula.
I'm not an attorney, but there have been times that I've been accused
of
thinking like one. I guess that, because we can come up with all of
these
weird situations that don't seem to fit, the law does need to be
complicatd.
Look at all of the posts in this thread and you will see a variety of
situations where a simple solution just won't work.
What really gets convoluted is if you compare intellectual property
rights
to real property rights. I build a house, I own it.
I'm having a house built to my own floor plan - the building company
wants to add my floor plan to their book of standard designs.
I feel slightly complimented. :-)
I write a poem, I own
it. But we are saying here that, while we have no real problems with
my
home ownership, we do have problems with my owing the poem. The
difference
in the way we react to this is based on the difference in the way we
see
the
two different pieces of property. But they are both ours...
If you write a poem, you still hold the original, just as I will hold
the original house.
Copies of the poem or the house are just copies. It's the intellectual
input that (should) belong to the originator.
Your poem consists of words and concepts already invented and in common
use, as does my house. It's the way those commonly used compents are
put
together that makes them unique.
Are we having fun yet?
Of course,
Greg.P.
One of my web clients is a contractor... they build houses AND maintain
rights to their floor plans! So you had better think twice about letting
yours go.
Now we are REALLY having fun! : )
dlm
I'm definitely intending to keep the floor I've paid for - the building
company is welcome to the intellectual rights to its concepts _after_
that point.
(as in 'what do I care?')
Regards,
Greg.P.
but the competitive
