DIYbanter - View Single Post

wrote:

Of course not - which is exactly the point. It's an example of a
creation that managed to get created even in John Field's supposedly
dull and monochrome world without intellectual property.

And it is indeed interesting to see that 'intellectual property' is not
absolute. Actually there are different kinds like trade marks, patents,
copyrights, and so on.

Which leads to the observation that there exist "intellectual things"
which currently can not be owned. Things invented before is supposed to
be one; trivial things another.

There must be a reason the ownership of this 'property' is not absolute.

And oh yes: please talk about the kind of ownership. "Intellectual
property" as a term is very vague and a sign of lawyer-speak. "Gazweezmo
version 6 is our 'intellectual property'" - yes, what about it is? The
name? The copyright on the packaging? The copyright on the code? A
patent on any oinvention that's inside?

By using the vague term, lawyers try to use the law they like best to
apply to the whole - probably even to the product idea (like Philips'
great 'you can't zap away from the commercials' invention).

Thomas