The Point Of Intellectual Property Is Not So You Get A Piece Of Everything
from the let's-try-this-again dept
One of the main problems that seems to crop up again and again when it comes to debates over intellectual property is that many people seem to assume that the main purpose of intellectual property is to give complete control to the originator of the IP. That's not the case. The main purpose is to encourage the generation of intellectual property. Sometimes those things are aligned, but quite frequently, they're not. Still, that doesn't stop plenty of ridiculous intellectual property moves from people who seem to think they have a right to things they don't. The latest example comes courtesy of BoingBoing and apparently discusses a chef in Europe who is asking for a special law in Italy that would allow him to copyright recipes, making sure that anyone else who made one of his recipes had to give him credit (he's not asking for money, which is a nice change). Obviously, a written down recipe, including the instructions, can be covered by copyright. However, just the concept of the recipe should not be. The real question, though, is what is this encouraging? Obviously, there's been no shortage of new recipes recently due to a lack of intellectual property protection for those recipes. The added incentive seems minimal -- and the overall harm to society by introducing an additional "cost" (even if it's just giving credit) seems much higher than the benefit for a few celebrity chefs. The source of this story is a bit unclear -- so we hope that it's not actually true, and perhaps it's a bit of satire aimed at those who are still believers in things like software patents.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
umm, the infringement notice was an obvious joke
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: umm, the infringement notice was an obvious jo
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: umm, the infringement notice was an obvious jo
If this were slashdot, there would be about 50 people by now who would have said:
RTFA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Come on.... seriously..... "cookyright"??? Destroying their kitchen in response to the violation???? Not allowed to be inspired by any recipe?
IT'S A JOKE!!!!!!!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: umm, the infringement notice was an obvious jo
The TOP part of the post, with the fake press release is a joke. The bottom part appears to be more serious.
Come on.... seriously..... "cookyright"??? Destroying their kitchen in response to the violation???? Not allowed to be inspired by any recipe?
All of that is the joke, but it's based on the bottom part, which appears to be more based on fact. You said RTFA. I'd suggest reading the whole F article. :)
IT'S A JOKE!!!!!!!
Um. Ok.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
What's wrong with patents?
If I create something new, and I want to sell it, it is important for me to be able to protect my idea from being copied by someone more powerful than me.
Patents are very useful for software when used within reason.
The part that needs to be fixed is the patent office handing out claimless patents to anybody with 10K.
Remember the "1 click purchase" patent?
This kind of crap is what ruins it for the rest of us, and it is up to the patent office to weed out what's not legitimate.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: What's wrong with patents?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: What's wrong with patents?
Another problem is how different does an implementation have to be before patent infringement doesn't occur? One difference? Two? 10%? 20%?
These sort of issues keep smaller players, who might innovate, out of the market, for fear of being ruined by the big players with the big money.
These issues are too vague when applied to software where there are very similar memes in implementations.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: What's wrong with patents?
The thing is, software is ALREADY covered under copyright which grants protection for the lifetime of the creator PLUS 75 years. Give them patent protection and it will create an unfair advantage for the owner of the patent, allowing them yet another way to halt innovation.
I'd be fine with software patents if they had a limited lifespan of 1-2 years and after that the source code becomes open source. That way you have time to make your money and then to keep it beyond that you have to significantly improve it.
If software patents were allowed, you'd be paying me $$$ every time you used a "Visual" programming environment as I have prior art dating back to 1984 for the first visual IDE for assembly, BASIC, Pascal, Fortran, COBOL, etc.. I know for certain that wouldn't seem very obvious to a patent clerk back then but it seemed so obvious to me that I never released it for public use as it was simply intended as an internally used *utility*.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: What's wrong with patents?
That's what copyright does (there's a clue in the name). Patents, OTOH, allow trolls and their clever lawyers to extort money from inventive people like you, without having created anything new and with no intention of selling anything.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: umm, the infringement notice was an obvious jo
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: umm, the infringement notice was an obvious jo
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
No Subject Given
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
recipes CAN be protected
"Mere listings of ingredients as in recipes, formulas, compounds or prescriptions are not subject to copyright protection. However, where a recipe or formula is accompanied by substantial literary expression in the form of an explanation or directions, or when there is a combination of recipes, as in a cookbook, there may be a basis for copyright protection."
That simply says that once you tell someone how to put them together, it can be protected. Merely listing the ingredients does not warrant protection. And as far as I can remember, "functional instructions" have been able to be protected by copyright, for examples see books on programming, home repair, etc.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: recipes CAN be protected
And, as for the functionality/expression dichotomy that has been part of fundamental copyright law since the late 1800's, you might want to start with Baker v. Selden, 101 U.S. 99 (1879) (look at http://www.law.uconn.edu/homes/swilf/ip/cases/baker.htm and plenty of other places) and work your way forward from there.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: recipes CAN be protected
"That simply says that once you tell someone how to put them together, it can be protected."
No, it doesn't. See the words "substantial literay expression?"
You can't (in the U.S.) publish a word for word copy of someone else's recipe, but you can publish a recipe for exactly the same final product produced with the exact same ingredients, using the very same method, as long as you express it in your own words.
In short, you can't copyright methods or ideas. You can only copyright the expression thereof.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
i don't mean to rain on the parade, but...
http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/not-ipr.xhtml
[ link to this | view in chronology ]