Main > Forum/Website Discussion
How much of any of this is our individual IP?
pbj:
In the thread - intellectual property thieves asserting ownership of their method of piracy
:applaud:
Ond:
Really, I was just wondering what the purpose of this thread was. Not that there has to be a purpose of course, but if there was one where was it heading? So, abstractly then, Items a, b and c are agreed (through forum consensus, including saint's approval) to be be a certain members IP. What then?
I assert ownership over nothing, but what's yours is mine Jim >:D .
Jennifer, I wouldn't presume to understand a members reasons for content deletion, my question about the priority of someone's health still stands (even though it's in the wrong thread).
Dawgz Rule:
--- Quote ---Consider Coke, Pepsi, and any other cola out there. There are definite differences in taste, however each of their products share many of the exact same ingredients. You could not keep the exact ingredients in the exact measure and keep the exact same production process, or else you'd be infringing on their rights, however, if you modify them even slightly, you have a unique product, and you can now claim intellectual property rules.
--- End quote ---
Rick, this is 100% incorrect. I recently took a position at a research institution and was required to take a mandatory course on IP, Copyrights, Patents, etc. Slight modification of an existing product was specifically given as an example that does not constitute a new and unique product. This is particularly true when a slight aesthetic change is made but the functionality is identical. The product needs to be sufficiently different to be considered a unique product that can be offered protections.
jennifer:
But... OND, Credit where credit is due, Your build, ideas and designs are the cornerstone of this community.
Rick:
--- Quote from: Dawgz Rule on February 18, 2015, 08:04:55 pm ---Rick, this is 100% incorrect. I recently took a position at a research institution and was required to take a mandatory course on IP, Copyrights, Patents, etc. Slight modification of an existing product was specifically given as an example that does not constitute a new and unique product. This is particularly true when a slight aesthetic change is made but the functionality is identical. The product needs to be sufficiently different to be considered a unique product that can be offered protections.
--- End quote ---
I wouldn't say 100% incorrect - I've discussed this previously with a friend who has years of experience working in Trademark Law, and this is what I understand. Maybe this is only in Canada?
Also, if I'm correct in what I read in this article from this website, which is calling out IP law in Canada, it may help to flesh out this a bit better: http://zvulony.ca/2010/articles/intellectual-property-law/understanding-intellectual-property-law/
I will say that we may be discussing Copyright or Trademark Law rather than IP Law.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version