[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Wallace case FAQ for dummies v1.0

From: Alexander Terekhov
Subject: Re: Wallace case FAQ for dummies v1.0
Date: Mon, 03 Jul 2006 11:21:28 +0200

Wei Mingzhi wrote:
> I'd recommend dropping the case of "Intellectual Property" as I don't think
> this is a strict legalese, just a brainwashing propaganda carried out by some
> politicians and big companies. Actually even my law teacher (who is a lawyer)
> admits that writting "Intellectual Property" in a contract without
> clarification about what it actually means will result in ambiguity. 

As with any collective term, there's some degree of ambiguity. In the 
context of this thread (and Wallace case), it means property rights 
under copyright and patent law (licensed under the GPL).

There's no ambiguity.

>                                                                      And
> there are also _no_ "Intellectual Property" in the actual laws.

Try 11 USC 365, for example. Read also

I mean the entire book.


reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]