Everything can be intellectual property

daniel grisinger daniel at netgods.net
Thu Aug 21 10:01:40 PDT 2003

Well, yes.  That is certainly the desired result.

The thing that is interesting to me is the tactical decision
to argue this on the basis of IP infringement.  Buffett
is no fool, he recognizes that our present IP regime
is sliding toward granting unlimited rights to those who
can argue to hold title to any sort of IP.

But this is the stuff of which backlashes are made.  The
general public may be willing to allow Disney to claim
title to our cultural heritage, they are going to be less
sanguine about arguments that they cannot do things that
rich people do because rich people own the rights to those
actions.  (Or perhaps that rich people own the rights to
the idea of taking those actions;  I'm not sure, and the
entire line of argument being proffered by Buffett makes
very little sense to me.)


Gregory Alan Bolcer wrote:

> The only thing he's losing is the ability to buy
> cheap stock and quickly accumulate large holdings
> over a short period of time.  There's nothing 
> unique about that other than he's whining about 
> not being able to make as much money.  That is
> NOT what intellectual property is--that's called
> privacy.

> daniel grisinger wrote:
>>The request, in itself, isn't surprising.  Buffett has received
>>clearance for confidentiality numerous times over the past 15
>>years by arguing that disclosure would impair his ability to trade
>>in shares by altering market conditions (read: driving up the price
>>as soon as other investors realize where his money is going).  This
>>is the first time, so far as I can tell, that intelectual property has
>>been used as the grounds to justify the request for confidentiality.

More information about the FoRK mailing list