I meant to add, that IP schemes do deal with these issues -- they simply do so by refusing to protect one author against the independent creations of another.
This should teach me from trying to think prior to adequate caffeination. On Dec 27, 2007 11:39 AM, Lawnun <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > ... and other places as well. Which (to bring things back around to > > IP) illustrates a common weakness in most IP schemes - they do not > > deal well with independent invention. > > > > -- Charles > > > > Actually, they do. Egypt and its whacky copyright abomination aside, US > (and as far as I know, most other copyright laws, including India [1]) do > not protect a copyright owner from expressions that are independently > created by another. Add to that the fact that copyright and patent laws are > territorial in scope, and the idea of independent creation becomes a > non-issue in this example. > > Incidentally, zero isn't a copyrightable expression, anymore than the word > "blog" or "Snaglefrach" is copyrightable. Words and concepts are > non-protectable subject matter, for obvious reasons. > > > > > > [1] http://www.nasscom.in/Nasscom/templates/NormalPage.aspx?id=26104 >
