From: Dave Long (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Date: Wed Feb 23 2000 - 01:14:37 PST
> It's culturally interesting, I think, that we had a model of going from elite
> to mass, and now have a much more mixed model, with frequent movement from
> mass to elite.
That's a very interesting idea; thanks for airing it here, along
with the probable provenance.
> after incidental bits?>>--yeah, probably some of these guys can afford to let
> some stuff slide--not worth paying all that money to the gumshoes and
> mouthpieces to track down the theives--but shouldn't that be their business
> judgment, rather than the law's decision?
I'd agree: it should be their business decision; my understanding is
that the law is written on a full-lawyer-employment basis: you may
lose protection unless you go full-bore after any and all potential
infringers. Sounds awfully like the law's decision and not business
judgement to me.
With real property, we have the option of saying "go ahead, cross my
land to get to the beach" without losing protection against trespass
in general. I haven't seen such notions existing in the intellectual
"property" world; that lack may just be because we haven't had enough
time to work out the proper body of law.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Wed Feb 23 2000 - 01:05:19 PST