|
|
Joined: Dec 2000
Posts: 13,803
Carpal Tunnel
|
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Dec 2000
Posts: 13,803 |
If property is theft what is intellectual property?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2000
Posts: 2,788
Carpal Tunnel
|
|
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Sep 2000
Posts: 2,788 |
If property is theft what is intellectual property?
If crankcase oil is John O' Groats, what is philately?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2004
Posts: 1,475
veteran
|
|
veteran
Joined: Jan 2004
Posts: 1,475 |
If property is theft what is intellectual property?
Noumenal wankery?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2004
Posts: 89
journeyman
|
|
journeyman
Joined: May 2004
Posts: 89 |
Oh how cute! We have reached an impasse. Most here have nothing else to contribute to this serious discussion but wit. "Wit is the last refuge of the slow witted" - John Lee Hooker, 1957. 
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2000
Posts: 13,803
Carpal Tunnel
|
|
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Dec 2000
Posts: 13,803 |
This ain' no impasse. This is just only a dead end. We back quietly out and resume the original question.
Is alright a word?
Love your J. L. Hooker quote
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 6,296
Carpal Tunnel
|
|
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 6,296 |
I saw an old movile about the dogs of Hollywood. In one informative clip, the narrator told the audience that the dog they were seeing going around in circles was doing so because of his trainer's silent sign language. Sure enough, we saw the trainer making circles with his hand and the dog was going around in circles, following suit.
So, that dog was reading a symbol, perhaps a symbol that others would interpret identically, and that dog was following the command showing that it understood the language.
Was that dog reading and was that dog reading words? I'm just askin'...
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2001
Posts: 247
enthusiast
|
|
enthusiast
Joined: Oct 2001
Posts: 247 |
re intellectual property = the laws of patents, trademarks and copyrights.
There is another distinct category in some jurisdictions, Father Steve. "Industrial design". [In the U.S. this is captured under the general trademark category and described as a "design trademark", I believe.]
Here is how the intellectual property right known as "Industrial Design" is described by the Canadian Intellectual Property Office [CIPO]:
Industrial designs
A well-designed chair is not just a pleasure to sit on, but a pleasure to look at as well. This can be said for almost every manufactured product: its success in the marketplace will depend not only on its functionality, but on its visual appeal as well. That is why manufacturers invest a great deal of money and know-how in industrial design and why an original design is considered valuable intellectual property.
If you are the creator of, or an investor in, an original industrial design, Canadian law offers you protection from unlawful imitation of your design. The Industrial Design Act, like other forms of intellectual property legislation, works to protect owners while promoting the orderly exchange of information. The way to obtain such protection is to register your design with the Industrial Design Office.
re the law of weightless property
You were fortunate to have a law prof who could make the law spring off the page. Alas, I never had one who could do it.
BTW some movements within "routines" in world-class athletic competitions, such as figure skating and gymnastics are so difficult, enthralling or distinct, they have been named after the individuals who first performed them in competition. The most famous example I can think of is the Salchow, described thus:
"The Salchow jump (pronounced "sow-cow"), named for its originator Ulrich Salchow, is launched off the back inside edge and landed on the back outside edge of the opposite foot."
A unique athletic movement like the Salchow isn't an intellectual property, of course, so those who imitate it do not have to pay a royalty to the originator. The originator has to settle for the honor, no small thing, I grant, of having the movement named after him or her forever.
But world-class athletes invest many long years and enormous money [especially when you consider lost economic opportunities] in the development of their skills, and, in this, they are no different than the developer of an "industrial design" such as a beautiful and unique chair.
In theory, why should we not allow the originators of unique movements used [and subsequently imitated] in world-class athletic competitions to obtain a "design trademark" for their distinctive creation?
After all, these eponymous movements help to sell tickets to athletic competitions around the world whenever these enthralling movements are performed.
Commercial athletic events routinely pay "appearance fees" to star athletes who perform in their events.
Why shouldn't an amateur world-class athlete, who creates and performs an athletic movement so distinct it is named after the athlete, have the opportunity to receive a royalty every time that movement is performed by anyone at a commercial event, whether or not the athlete is still alive. Every time a Frank Sinatra record is played on the radio, Frank Sinatra's estate receives a royalty.
Is a Salchow any less distinctive and enthralling than the stylings of Frank Sinatra [or the stylings of lesser singers who also collect royalties whenever their songs are aired]?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2000
Posts: 2,788
Carpal Tunnel
|
|
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Sep 2000
Posts: 2,788 |
The law, like the language, continues to change. The notion of industrial design is one which eluded my notice those many decades ago when I was in law school. Interesting. Thanks.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2004
Posts: 1,475
veteran
|
|
veteran
Joined: Jan 2004
Posts: 1,475 |
shellb: The word *love* whether written or spoken [...] symbolises different things to everybody.
amemeba: But so does the term "apple" or "snowski" or "dipstick". Such is the interaction between man and words that no word has exactly the same meaning each time we use it.
OK. We haven't established what a word is, but we're on to meaning. OK. So "apple" means a certain kinda fruit, mostly, but on occasion it means other things to other people. But for language to work, and words (whatever they are), meanings (whatever they are), ideas (whatever they are), and people (you get the idea) have to come together in some kind of consensus by convention. In short, there needs to be a commonality, communality, and cooperation.
Yes, "apple" and "love" mean all sorts of things to all sorts of people, but they are commonly used in such a way that their meanings are restricted by all sorts of things, but especially by the other words in the sentence (or utterance). Oh, dear, dear, dear me: now I've gone and brought syntax into it (whatever that is). The one thing that seems to be lacking in other forms of animal communication (than the human one under discussion). But folks called lexicographers (the harmless drudges that they be) have gone about the monumental and holpless task of cataloging this words and describing their meanings by the use of other words, originally synonyms, but currently and usually sentences. When I say "apple" in isolation, it's tough to say what I mean (especially if as so oftenit is an non sequitur), but if I say "Whose apple is this?" in a certain context (e.g., pointing at a fruit on the table amongst at least one other human speaker of English) apple has a pretty narrow meaning. (Let's leave out personal, let alone cultural, connotations, like apples are my favorite fruit or that my mother was killed when somebody dropped a load of apples on her head, etc.) Apple will have a different meaning if I say "Watch out for the road apple." having nothing to do with the fruit. Or "We're going to the Big Apple. We leave tomorrow by train."
amemeba: Words didn't build the pyramids or send mankind to the moon, Amemeba. Ideas did that.
wsieber: his audacious statement brings to the fore that, underlying the present dispute we have the classic deep rift between idealists and realists.
amemeba: notice that wsieber used the term "audacious". Please detail the process involved in signing that quality.
There's more to this problem than the aforementioned classic rift. There's also the earlier problem of physis 'nature' vs convention 'convention'. And since we're in an argumentative mood, my dear amemeba, why haven't you answered my question about which came first, ideas or words. My injunction to not use words is dropped.
As for "audacious", the word (or is it a sign or a symbol?), now you've gone and brought qualities into it, by which I assume you mean the same thing as properties (or attributes) that dear old Aristotle said could be predicated about things (not words, but maybe also ideas). But I could be wrong. I could have misinterpreted your question. Nevertheless. I really cannot detail any process (by polishing an apple or an idea) since the process is psychological (cognitive not behavioral) at best and chemical at worst. Neither can you nor anybody else. Therefore the question was rhetorical. Not that that implies it has no meaning, just one outside my bailiwick.
amemeba: (Rexembxr txe fulx pagx lxtter thax wxs pasxed xbout ox thx intxrnex xith mxxspellxd woxds thxoughout txe messxge, yxt exeryxne whx rexd thxm fouxd thxm exsy xo rxad.?)
No, but I remember other such texts that floated around the web, in which letters were jumbled. This piece of folklore is rigged from the get-go. Take the words out of context, and put them in a list in other than sentential order, along with some non-word words. (And rather than using an 'x' use non-letters, or better yet use more common 'letters', and change them occasionally.) Doing something as simple as this takes away much of the redundancy in the message. And makes it more difficult. Are they still words? Perhaps, but we haven't really said what words are yet. There's always the albeit problematic) theory that words don't really exist. but are just a curious epiphenomenon of speech and/or language. Discuss.
But where are we going with this? Glad you asked. The question at hand, saying what is a word and what is not is impossible to answer at this point in time, so I guess we should pass over this thread in silence. (Too late.)
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2001
Posts: 247
enthusiast
|
|
enthusiast
Joined: Oct 2001
Posts: 247 |
Therefore the question was rhetorical. Not that that implies it has no meaning, just one outside my bailiwick.Nothing, at least nothing within the world of ideas, is "outside your bailiwick", jheem, as you have so ably and eloquently demonstrated time and time again, thread after thread. It is a treat to encounter your mind here in this forum, and one of the best reasons I can think of for visiting and revisiting AWADtalk. Mind, I did say "one of the best reasons". There are many knowledgeable, original and imaginative minds at play here. What an embarrassment of riches if there were only more. I say "embarassment" of riches, jheem, because there are those who may lament your extraordinary qualities of mind if they attract the likes of Wordminstrel to this forum. I feel rather like Ralph Nader must feel, running for a job he can't possibly win, with his dearest admirers begging him to leave the field. I personally feel Nader should leave the field, altho I am one of his admirers as well. Perhaps I should take heed of my own advice. Perhaps, I will. Play on, jheem. And damned be he who first cries "Hold, enough!"
|
|
|
|
Forums16
Topics13,913
Posts229,614
Members9,187
| |
Most Online3,341
Dec 9th, 2011
|
|
|
0 members (),
202
guests, and
1
robot. |
|
Key:
Admin,
Global Mod,
Mod
|
|
|
|
