http://news.cnet.com/8301-13860_3-10308164-56.html The news that a judge has slapped an injunction that could bar Microsoft from selling its flagship Word software is a big deal. But don't expect to see Redmond allow one of its key money makers to be pulled from the market--even for a day.
Not just on the article itself, pay attention also to the comments and arguments made.
http://www.physorg.com/news167929968.html A new study challenges the traditional view that patents foster innovation, suggesting instead that they may hinder technological progress, economic activity and societal wealth. These results could have important policy implications, because many countries count on patent systems to spur new technology and promote economic growth.
My ethical question is does intellectual property and copyright stifle or promote innovation?
The ethical problem is how do we justify something as original if everything is being built upon previous work?
How then does Einstein's famous quote that "if I have seen further, it is by standing on ye shoulders of giants" applies?
Who do patents and copyrights protect? What kind of ideologies underly such a policy?
I would argue that it is the capitalist ideologies, individualist ideologies that 'create' values for 'innovations'
It also underly the human supremacist ideology that we as human beings can somehow create something out of nothing. I've asked this question before, I'll ask again - Why is it that when a bird builds a nest, it's a natural habitat? But when a man builds a housing structure, it's a man-made architecture? Isn't it just as natural? Didn't we also build our houses using existing materials (in the materialism sense).
Weiye Loh wrote: > http://news.cnet.com/8301-13860_3-10308164-56.html > The news that a judge has slapped an injunction that could bar Microsoft from selling its flagship Word software is a big deal. But don't expect to see Redmond allow one of its key money makers to be pulled from the market--even for a day. > > Not just on the article itself, pay attention also to the comments and arguments made. > > > http://www.physorg.com/news167929968.html > A new study challenges the traditional view that patents foster innovation, suggesting instead that they may hinder technological progress, economic activity and societal wealth. These results could have important policy implications, because many countries count on patent systems to spur new technology and promote economic growth. > > > > My ethical question is does intellectual property and copyright stifle or promote innovation? > > The ethical problem is how do we justify something as original if everything is being built upon previous work? > > How then does Einstein's famous quote that "if I have seen further, it is by standing on ye shoulders of giants" applies?
The news that a judge has slapped an injunction that could bar Microsoft from selling its flagship Word software is a big deal. But don't expect to see Redmond allow one of its key money makers to be pulled from the market--even for a day.
Not just on the article itself, pay attention also to the comments and arguments made.
http://www.physorg.com/news167929968.html
A new study challenges the traditional view that patents foster innovation, suggesting instead that they may hinder technological progress, economic activity and societal wealth. These results could have important policy implications, because many countries count on patent systems to spur new technology and promote economic growth.
My ethical question is does intellectual property and copyright stifle or promote innovation?
The ethical problem is how do we justify something as original if everything is being built upon previous work?
How then does Einstein's famous quote that "if I have seen further, it is by standing on ye shoulders of giants" applies?
Who do patents and copyrights protect? What kind of ideologies underly such a policy?
I would argue that it is the capitalist ideologies, individualist ideologies that 'create' values for 'innovations'
It also underly the human supremacist ideology that we as human beings can somehow create something out of nothing. I've asked this question before, I'll ask again - Why is it that when a bird builds a nest, it's a natural habitat? But when a man builds a housing structure, it's a man-made architecture? Isn't it just as natural? Didn't we also build our houses using existing materials (in the materialism sense).
Weiye Loh wrote:
> http://news.cnet.com/8301-13860_3-10308164-56.html
> The news that a judge has slapped an injunction that could bar Microsoft from selling its flagship Word software is a big deal. But don't expect to see Redmond allow one of its key money makers to be pulled from the market--even for a day.
>
> Not just on the article itself, pay attention also to the comments and arguments made.
>
>
> http://www.physorg.com/news167929968.html
> A new study challenges the traditional view that patents foster innovation, suggesting instead that they may hinder technological progress, economic activity and societal wealth. These results could have important policy implications, because many countries count on patent systems to spur new technology and promote economic growth.
>
>
>
> My ethical question is does intellectual property and copyright stifle or promote innovation?
>
> The ethical problem is how do we justify something as original if everything is being built upon previous work?
>
> How then does Einstein's famous quote that "if I have seen further, it is by standing on ye shoulders of giants" applies?