Re: intellectual property (Re: Totalitarian Assumptions in I, Robot)

From: Samantha Atkins (
Date: Mon Mar 07 2005 - 02:43:51 MST

This is not what this list is for. Please stop.

On Mon, 7 Mar 2005 07:46:32 -0000, David Picon Alvarez
<> wrote:
> > My understanding is exactly the opposite.
> > Information is declared proprietary only when it
> > is NOT legally intellectual property. To claim
> > copyright on computer code, you have to send in
> > a copy to the copyright office, which can be
> > examined. Proprietary information is information
> > that is kept secret, not information that is subject
> > to intellectual property laws. At least, that
> > is how we used it in my company.
> You're wrong. Since a while ago when the USA became a signatory of the Berne
> convention, copyright is implicit in the fixing of an idea in a concrete
> physical form (ie, writing a book or a program). So copyright is
> automatically conferred on the author by statute, even if s/he does not
> register it. Registration is an optional step, which does help in certain
> legal procedures and ensures statutory damages can be recovered, but this
> e-mail is under my copyright by virtue of being written by me, an author, in
> a Berne signatory nation.
> > It is true that there is an exemption for computer
> > code, saying that only the first and last 10 pages
> > (or something like that) need be submitted to the
> > copyright office. But this makes proving
> > infringement harder.
> See above. Software is, to my knowledge, the only artifact that can be
> covered at the same time by copyright, patents and trade secrets.
> > As a rule: The existence of intellectual property
> > laws encourages the revelation of details such as
> > how voting machine works. The nonexistence of IP
> > mandates secrecy. So Thom's long article on
> > voting machines is a clear case in favor of IP law.
> If and only if IP law worked as you say it does.
> --David.

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Jul 17 2013 - 04:00:50 MDT