IntricateEntity
Banned
- Joined
- Jul 31, 2017
- Messages
- 5
- Reaction score
- 2
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Other
IMO, you can't own an idea, any more than you can own a thought. It makes no sense.
IMO, you can't own an idea, any more than you can own a thought. It makes no sense.
IMO, you can't own an idea, any more than you can own a thought. It makes no sense.
Ideas and intellectual property are not the sane. You have to put your idea on paper with documentation as to what your idea does, why it is special, and why it should be patented or copyrighted. When that is achieved, then it becomes intellectual property.
IMO, you can't own an idea, any more than you can own a thought. It makes no sense.
That is a logical fallacy known as a distinction without a difference. It's intellectual property at the instance that the thought occurs. How it is transmitted (verbally, written, musically, etc.) or legally protected is irrelevant to whether or not it exists or that it is in fact intellectual property.
Ideas and intellectual property are not the sane. You have to put your idea on paper with documentation as to what your idea does, why it is special, and why it should be patented or copyrighted. When that is achieved, then it becomes intellectual property.
IMO, you can't own an idea, any more than you can own a thought. It makes no sense.
Ideas and intellectual property are not the sane. You have to put your idea on paper with documentation as to what your idea does, why it is special, and why it should be patented or copyrighted. When that is achieved, then it becomes intellectual property.
Yes but sometimes it can be used in malicious ways and protections can be taken to extremes.
:lamo
It can be or do you view it as a perfect incorruptible system?
No, it's perfectly corruptible. Especially since people who don't want to pay for intellectual property, will simply steal it. It doesn't get much more corrupt than that.
I am not stealing their intellectual property, I am not breaking into their database, stealing the content, and selling it online like someone apparently just did.
That is a logical fallacy known as a distinction without a difference. It's intellectual property at the instance that the thought occurs. How it is transmitted (verbally, written, musically, etc.) or legally protected is irrelevant to whether or not it exists or that it is in fact intellectual property.
There is a big difference. I can have an idea to make a flying car but unless I figure out a way to actually make it then that idea isnt intellectual property and is worthless
IMO, you can't own an idea, any more than you can own a thought. It makes no sense.
But if you can't prove that you had it in any demonstrable way, you can't go after someone else for using the idea, or even show that they got it from you. Just saying that you had it first doesn't mean that you actually had it first.
Of course you can own an idea. However, you cannot own it forever, eventually patents expire.