[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: gpl licensing
From: |
Alexander Terekhov |
Subject: |
Re: gpl licensing |
Date: |
Mon, 04 Dec 2006 15:36:45 +0100 |
John Hasler wrote:
>
> Alexander Terekhov writes:
> > Intellectual property is property, that is to say, it belongs to someone
> > who has the right to exclude others from using it without his or her
> > consent.
>
> Then you agree that trade secrets are not property.
Eh?
"To the extent that appellee has an interest in its health, safety, and
environmental data cognizable as a trade-secret property right under
Missouri law, that property right is protected by the Taking Clause of
the Fifth Amendment. Despite their intangible nature, trade secrets have
many of the characteristics of more traditional forms of property.
Moreover, this Court has found other kinds of intangible interests to be
property for purposes of the Clause. Pp. 1000-1004." -- SCOTUS
regards,
alexander.
- Re: gpl licensing, (continued)
- Re: gpl licensing, Alfred M. Szmidt, 2006/12/04
- Message not available
- Re: gpl licensing, Alexander Terekhov, 2006/12/04
- Re: gpl licensing, Alfred M. Szmidt, 2006/12/04
- Re: gpl licensing, Richard Tobin, 2006/12/04
- Re: gpl licensing, Alexander Terekhov, 2006/12/04
- Message not available
- Re: gpl licensing, John Hasler, 2006/12/04
- Re: gpl licensing,
Alexander Terekhov <=
- Re: gpl licensing, Rui Miguel Silva Seabra, 2006/12/03