«

nick c <> writes:

> Copyrights and intellectual property rights seem to be similar yet
> different.

Specifically, copyright law is a subset of intellectual property law.
Intellectual property is a broader category that includes trademarks,
servicemarks, and patents, as well as copyrights.

> I've been under the impression that intellectual property covers
> creations of the mind that may not culminate in the physical creation
> of what the mind has conceived. Copyrights are granted to cover the
> ownership of the physical creation of what the mind has conceived.

No; copyright is one of the less "physical" of the intellectual property
regimes, because it's not the book that's protected, it's the series of
words recorded in the book.

> Thinking about something and documenting what has been thought, then
> either creating it or not creating it may be labeled as being
> intellectual property. Thinking about something then creating it may
> be covered by copyrights, which may, like patents, have a limited time
> of ownership. Whereas, intellectual property ownership has no limited
> time of ownership.

Thinking about something and then creating it is the classic patent
scenario -- "inventions". Figuring out a way to express something and
fixing it in tangible form (photograhy, writing, music) is the domain of
copyright. Then trademarks exist to protect corporate names, brand
names, product names, and such.

> That has been my understanding of the difference between copyrights
> and intellectual property rights.

My knowledge is largely American; but the general division into
categories is roughly correct world-wide I believe.
--
Googleproofaddress(account:dd-b provider:dd-b domain:net)
Snapshots: http://dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/data/
Photos: http://dd-b.net/photography/gallery/
Dragaera: http://dragaera.info

On 11/9/2012 3:36 PM, David Dyer-Bennet wrote:
> nick c <> writes:
>
>> Copyrights and intellectual property rights seem to be similar yet
>> different.
>
> Specifically, copyright law is a subset of intellectual property law.
> Intellectual property is a broader category that includes trademarks,
> servicemarks, and patents, as well as copyrights.
>
>> I've been under the impression that intellectual property covers
>> creations of the mind that may not culminate in the physical creation
>> of what the mind has conceived. Copyrights are granted to cover the
>> ownership of the physical creation of what the mind has conceived.
>
> No; copyright is one of the less "physical" of the intellectual property
> regimes, because it's not the book that's protected, it's the series of
> words recorded in the book.

At one time I designed a concept of metal seal to be used in a vacuum
environment. NASA rejected the design in favor of another readily
available metal seal. Later it was learned that another company had
manufactured a seal that looked like the seal I had conceived and
intended to use in a life support system. The company I worked for
stopped the manufacturing of that seal 'cause it was thought to be
covered by the intellectual property law although I never actually
manufactured the seal nor tested it.

>
>> Thinking about something and documenting what has been thought, then
>> either creating it or not creating it may be labeled as being
>> intellectual property. Thinking about something then creating it may
>> be covered by copyrights, which may, like patents, have a limited time
>> of ownership. Whereas, intellectual property ownership has no limited
>> time of ownership.
>
> Thinking about something and then creating it is the classic patent
> scenario -- "inventions". Figuring out a way to express something and
> fixing it in tangible form (photograhy, writing, music) is the domain of
> copyright. Then trademarks exist to protect corporate names, brand
> names, product names, and such.
>
>> That has been my understanding of the difference between copyrights
>> and intellectual property rights.
>
> My knowledge is largely American; but the general division into
> categories is roughly correct world-wide I believe.
>

Just think, I went through life without studying law and I survived.

nick c <> writes:

> On 11/9/2012 3:36 PM, David Dyer-Bennet wrote:
>> nick c <> writes:
>>
>>> Copyrights and intellectual property rights seem to be similar yet
>>> different.
>>
>> Specifically, copyright law is a subset of intellectual property law.
>> Intellectual property is a broader category that includes trademarks,
>> servicemarks, and patents, as well as copyrights.
>>
>>> I've been under the impression that intellectual property covers
>>> creations of the mind that may not culminate in the physical creation
>>> of what the mind has conceived. Copyrights are granted to cover the
>>> ownership of the physical creation of what the mind has conceived.
>>
>> No; copyright is one of the less "physical" of the intellectual property
>> regimes, because it's not the book that's protected, it's the series of
>> words recorded in the book.
>
> At one time I designed a concept of metal seal to be used in a vacuum
> environment. NASA rejected the design in favor of another readily
> available metal seal. Later it was learned that another company had
> manufactured a seal that looked like the seal I had conceived and
> intended to use in a life support system. The company I worked for
> stopped the manufacturing of that seal 'cause it was thought to be
> covered by the intellectual property law although I never actually
> manufactured the seal nor tested it.

Our patent law is pretty screwed up, in that date of filing doesn't
matter much and records of invention do; I strongly suspect they were
basically threatening to file for a patent based on your work. However,
this is a highly technical area and i'm *not* an expert in it, so don't
take me too seriously. I do think I have the general outlines of the
territories, and their names, reasonably correct, but the details get
arcane *really* fast.

>>> Thinking about something and documenting what has been thought, then
>>> either creating it or not creating it may be labeled as being
>>> intellectual property. Thinking about something then creating it may
>>> be covered by copyrights, which may, like patents, have a limited time
>>> of ownership. Whereas, intellectual property ownership has no limited
>>> time of ownership.
>>
>> Thinking about something and then creating it is the classic patent
>> scenario -- "inventions". Figuring out a way to express something and
>> fixing it in tangible form (photograhy, writing, music) is the domain of
>> copyright. Then trademarks exist to protect corporate names, brand
>> names, product names, and such.
>>
>>> That has been my understanding of the difference between copyrights
>>> and intellectual property rights.
>>
>> My knowledge is largely American; but the general division into
>> categories is roughly correct world-wide I believe.
>>
>
> Just think, I went through life without studying law and I survived.

So far, anyway .

Me too.
--
Googleproofaddress(account:dd-b provider:dd-b domain:net)
Snapshots: http://dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/data/
Photos: http://dd-b.net/photography/gallery/
Dragaera: http://dragaera.info

On Sat, 10 Nov 2012 17:16:49 +1300, Eric Stevens <>
wrote:
: On Fri, 09 Nov 2012 17:27:19 -0500, Robert Coe <> wrote:
:
: >On Sat, 10 Nov 2012 10:42:37 +1300, Eric Stevens <>
: >wrote:
: >: On Fri, 9 Nov 2012 09:12:34 -0500, "Mayayana"
: >: <> wrote:
: >:
: >: >| What the heck, we buy software which we don't own which sometimes even
: >: >| has a number of limited uses.
: >: >|
: >: >| I wonder!!!
: >: >
: >: > Yes. The case could be made that Microsoft has broken the law by
: >: >extorting multiple license payments when someone buys a new PC or
: >: >has to buy a new disk. They claim software is intellectual property
: >: >but legally claim that it's licensed to an inanimate object -- the
: >: >motherboard! That's a trick on the level of Saturday morning cartoons.
: >:
: >: Yet, here in New Zealand, I've succeeded in buying an installable copy
: >: of Windows XP on a CD for NZ$25. It was a backup for the copy installed
: >: on my machine from new. The CD came complete with instructions about how
: >: to install and unlock it if I ever needed to do so.
: >
: >I hate to burst your bubble, but that doesn't sound like such a great deal to
: >me. We bought a lot of Dell PCs and servers in the XP days, and each came with
: >a re-installation CD that allowed you to rebuild the OS from scratch.
: >Moreover, that CD would work on any Dell computer; and although it came with a
: >product code, I can't recall ever being prompted for it. And I installed XP on
: >a LOT of computers.
:
: What you got was probably a 'ghost' image. What I got was an
: installable OS.

No, it was a fully installable OS. Its only limitation was that it would
install only on Dell machines.

Also included was a separate CD with various drivers and utilities. That one
tended to be a bit more model-specific; but if you were careful and knew what
you were doing, you could find all that stuff on Dell's Web site.

Bob

On Fri, 09 Nov 2012 14:45:25 -0800, nick c <> wrote:
: On 11/9/2012 1:42 PM, Eric Stevens wrote:
: > On Fri, 9 Nov 2012 09:12:34 -0500, "Mayayana"
: > <> wrote:
: >
: >> | What the heck, we buy software which we don't own which sometimes even
: >> | has a number of limited uses.
: >> |
: >> | I wonder!!!
: >>
: >> Yes. The case could be made that Microsoft has
: >> broken the law by extorting multiple license payments
: >> when someone buys a new PC or has to buy a new
: >> disk. They claim software is intellectual property but
: >> legally claim that it's licensed to an inanimate
: >> object -- the motherboard! That's a trick on the level
: >> of Saturday morning cartoons.
: >
: > Yet, here in New Zealand, I've succeeded in buying an installable copy
: > of Windows XP on a CD for NZ$25. It was a backup for the copy
: > installed on my machine from new. The CD came complete with
: > instructions about how to install and unlock it if I ever needed to do
: > so.
: >
: > I've also succeeded in transferring the license for my then current
: > Windows XP from one machine (which had died) to a brand new
: > replacement machine.
: >
: > Microsoft is beareaucratic but it is not mindlessly ruthless.
: >>
: >> It seems to be a simple case of companies like MS,
: >> Adobe, etc. having more lawyers and lobbyists than
: >> anyone who cares to oppose them. Also, they have a
: >> valid claim in trying to prevent the spread of illegal
: >> digital copies. So their claims have never been tested.
: >> And they cleverly took a "passive aggressive" approach
: >> that serves to mute the issue: Instead of legally enforcing
: >> their claims they've rigged their software for limited
: >> functionality. You buy a PC and get no disk anymore.
: >> The OS installed is locked to a code in the BIOS. If you
: >> try to copy it to a new PC it doesn't work. Then MS
: >> threatens PC makers who dare to sell a PC without Windows.
: >>
: >> http://news.zdnet.co.uk/hardware/0,1...9286228,00.htm
: >>
: >> That's a non-confrontive way of forcing you to
: >> buy a software license with every PC or major
: >> repair. (Not to single out MS.)
: >>
: >> | I have a favored vehicle, my Ford truck. I bought it but Ford owns the
: >> | detail drawings of the design. The design drawings may not need to be
: >> | patented but they surely can be considered as being Intellectual
: >> | Property. Do you think there will come a day when I can neither trade,
: >> | sell my truck, or give my truck to a family member because Ford owns the
: >> | Intellectual Property rights?
: >> |
: >>
: >> That's one of the issues being talked about in the
: >> Supreme Court case: If intellectual property from
: >> offshore sources can't be resold then the software
: >> in foreign cars/trucks would qualify those for
: >> protection. I have a Toyota pickup. I *love* the
: >> quality (my last truck lasted 18 years and 239,000
: >> miles), but Toyota is abusive to their customers.
: >> They charge me the mechanic's markup if I buy parts
: >>from them.
: >
: > That's called the retail price.
: >
: >> I have no doubt they'd charge me for the
: >> right to resell if given the chance.
: >
: > You would actualy get a better 'trade' price.
: >
: >> The implication is that a lot of manufacturing might
: >> then be moved offshore and products could be designed
: >> to incorporate some kind of intellectual property.
: >
: > They don't have to "be designed to incorporate some kind of
: > intellectual property". They alread do incorporate 'some kind of'
: > intellectual property. It's called copyright.
:
: Copyrights and intellectual property rights seem to be similar yet
: different. I've been under the impression that intellectual property
: covers creations of the mind that may not culminate in the physical
: creation of what the mind has conceived. Copyrights are granted to cover
: the ownership of the physical creation of what the mind has conceived.
:
: Thinking about something and documenting what has been thought, then
: either creating it or not creating it may be labeled as being
: intellectual property. Thinking about something then creating it may be
: covered by copyrights, which may, like patents, have a limited time of
: ownership. Whereas, intellectual property ownership has no limited time
: of ownership.
:
: That has been my understanding of the difference between copyrights and
: intellectual property rights.
:
: Geeze, just thinking about that means ancestors of ancient Egyptians
: (original creators of time control devices) who have documents to prove
: time measuring devices were the inventions of their minds, which now may
: be thought to be covered by intellectual property right laws, may sue
: everyone in the world who owns a watch 'cause they own the rights to
: their intellectual property.
:
: How about them apples.

How about them? One of my ancestors planted the first apple tree, and even now
my lawyers are figuring out how to soak you hapless yokels who imagine that
you have the right to pick and eat them.

Bob

On 11/9/2012 9:11 PM, David Dyer-Bennet wrote:
> nick c <> writes:
>
>> On 11/9/2012 3:36 PM, David Dyer-Bennet wrote:
>>> nick c <> writes:
>>>
>>>> Copyrights and intellectual property rights seem to be similar yet
>>>> different.
>>>
>>> Specifically, copyright law is a subset of intellectual property law.
>>> Intellectual property is a broader category that includes trademarks,
>>> servicemarks, and patents, as well as copyrights.
>>>
>>>> I've been under the impression that intellectual property covers
>>>> creations of the mind that may not culminate in the physical creation
>>>> of what the mind has conceived. Copyrights are granted to cover the
>>>> ownership of the physical creation of what the mind has conceived.
>>>
>>> No; copyright is one of the less "physical" of the intellectual property
>>> regimes, because it's not the book that's protected, it's the series of
>>> words recorded in the book.
>>
>> At one time I designed a concept of metal seal to be used in a vacuum
>> environment. NASA rejected the design in favor of another readily
>> available metal seal. Later it was learned that another company had
>> manufactured a seal that looked like the seal I had conceived and
>> intended to use in a life support system. The company I worked for
>> stopped the manufacturing of that seal 'cause it was thought to be
>> covered by the intellectual property law although I never actually
>> manufactured the seal nor tested it.
>
> Our patent law is pretty screwed up, in that date of filing doesn't
> matter much and records of invention do; I strongly suspect they were
> basically threatening to file for a patent based on your work. However,
> this is a highly technical area and i'm *not* an expert in it, so don't
> take me too seriously. I do think I have the general outlines of the
> territories, and their names, reasonably correct, but the details get
> arcane *really* fast.

Thank for you conversational input, David. There's not much I know about
the legal system in matters such as I've provided. "It's not my job" as
the saying goes.

>
>>>> Thinking about something and documenting what has been thought, then
>>>> either creating it or not creating it may be labeled as being
>>>> intellectual property. Thinking about something then creating it may
>>>> be covered by copyrights, which may, like patents, have a limited time
>>>> of ownership. Whereas, intellectual property ownership has no limited
>>>> time of ownership.
>>>
>>> Thinking about something and then creating it is the classic patent
>>> scenario -- "inventions". Figuring out a way to express something and
>>> fixing it in tangible form (photograhy, writing, music) is the domain of
>>> copyright. Then trademarks exist to protect corporate names, brand
>>> names, product names, and such.
>>>
>>>> That has been my understanding of the difference between copyrights
>>>> and intellectual property rights.
>>>
>>> My knowledge is largely American; but the general division into
>>> categories is roughly correct world-wide I believe.
>>>
>>
>> Just think, I went through life without studying law and I survived.
>
> So far, anyway .
>
> Me too.
>

On Friday, November 9, 2012 10:31:17 PM UTC, Robert Coe wrote:
> On Sat, 10 Nov 2012 10:42:37 +1300, Eric Stevens <>
>
> wrote:
>
> : On Fri, 9 Nov 2012 09:12:34 -0500, "Mayayana"
>
> : <> wrote:
>
> :
>
> : >| What the heck, we buy software which we don't own which sometimes even
>
> : >| has a number of limited uses.
>
> : >|
>
> : >| I wonder!!!
>
> : >
>
> : > Yes. The case could be made that Microsoft has broken the law by
>
> : >extorting multiple license payments when someone buys a new PC or
>
> : >has to buy a new disk. They claim software is intellectual property
>
> : >but legally claim that it's licensed to an inanimate object -- the
>
> : >motherboard! That's a trick on the level of Saturday morning cartoons.
>
> :
>
> : Yet, here in New Zealand, I've succeeded in buying an installable copy
>
> : of Windows XP on a CD for NZ$25. It was a backup for the copy installed
>
> : on my machine from new. The CD came complete with instructions about how
>
> : to install and unlock it if I ever needed to do so.
>
>
>
> I hate to burst your bubble, but that doesn't sound like such a great deal to
>
> me. We bought a lot of Dell PCs and servers in the XP days, and each came with
>
> a re-installation CD that allowed you to rebuild the OS from scratch.
>
> Moreover, that CD would work on any Dell computer; and although it came with a
>
> product code, I can't recall ever being prompted for it. And I installed XP on
>
> a LOT of computers.
>
>
>
> Installation of the various versions of Windows Server 2003 worked pretty much
>
> the same way.
>
>
>
> Bob

I have heard that before.

Our IT guys says installing Windows on any Dell computer is dead easy, when the the install program checks the motherboard and sees is a Dell it skips all license checks.

Makes sense, Dell is charging for Windows on all products.


DanP

| : What you got was probably a 'ghost' image. What I got was an
| : installable OS.
|
| No, it was a fully installable OS. Its only limitation was that it would
| install only on Dell machines.

Dell does that, but it's designed to work like
a disk image. Companies typically install
a restore partition on the PC, with option to buy
a CD, as you did. Some are restore CDs. Some are
a copy of Windows. But it boils down to the same
thing. One can install any backup --
onboard disk image or CD -- to a matching
motherboard, but Microsoft has done their best
to prevent being able to use any OEM copy
of Windows on a different PC, or on the same PC
with a new motherboard. So the fact that you have
a "real Windows CD", and had to pay an extra 20%
of the cost of the original license for it, is "cold
comfort".

Previously, one received an actual Windows
CD with no restrictions. In other words, Microsoft
had originally respected the fact that people were
paying for a copy of Windows when they bought
a PC.

Even more awkward for Microsoft is that there's
really no such thing as a PC. They're just assemblies
of several components, from different companies,
that the PC company puts into their own case and
resells. The copy of Windows is just one item. The
motherboard is another. Microsoft makes the bizarre
legal claim that the copy of Windows is tied to the
motherboard. It's an understandable way to attempt
rendering the Windows copy as a distinct object, like
a book, in order to stop illegal copying, but it cheats
the buyer because they have a right to use a single
installation of that copy of Windows as long as they
like, or to give it away, or to sell it -- at least
under US law.

I think it would be fair to characterize the digital
dilemma as one where lots of people on both sides
are trying to exploit the problem: File sharers pretend
that digital data is free for the taking. Software
companies and Hollywood honchos see a chance to
take away any rights from the customer by restricting
access to purchased material and, now, by trying to
charge for use, with no option to own a copy at all.

On 11/10/2012 8:50 AM, Mayayana wrote:


<snip>

>
> I think it would be fair to characterize the digital
> dilemma as one where lots of people on both sides
> are trying to exploit the problem: File sharers pretend
> that digital data is free for the taking. Software
> companies and Hollywood honchos see a chance to
> take away any rights from the customer by restricting
> access to purchased material and, now, by trying to
> charge for use, with no option to own a copy at all.
>
>

I think Adobe as a reasonable compromise. I am permitted to have two
installs. If I want to transfer to another machine, I deactivate and
install on my new machine. In the event of a HD crash, I called a
special number, explained what happened, and I was then able to activate.


--
Peter