[thelist] intellectual property again (was RE: Findingthe company...?)

Ken Schaefer Ken at adOpenStatic.com
Tue Oct 30 08:05:11 CDT 2007

-----Original Message-----
From: thelist-bounces at lists.evolt.org [mailto:thelist-bounces at lists.evolt.org] On Behalf Of Shawn K. Quinn
Sent: Tuesday, 30 October 2007 8:43 AM
To: thelist at lists.evolt.org
Subject: Re: [thelist] intellectual property again (was RE: Findingthe company...?)

On Mon, 2007-10-29 at 11:34 -0800, Joel D Canfield wrote:
> > > Thinking in terms of property means sooner or later someone will say
> > > "that's mine, you can't take it and use it elsewhere."
> >
> > But it *does* belong to someone. Are you saying it doesn't?
> I'm saying that using the word "property" to refer to something which
> the laws are very different from actual property laws, only confuses
> matters and encourages unwarranted greed.


Greed is greed. No matter what you call it, or how we deal with it, there will by shysters that find some way to screw other people over. 100,000 years of human history should have taught us that by now.

> > Calling it 'property' didn't cause the developer to refuse to give it
> > up; it should, in fact, have clarified things.
> Apparently, it did not in this case.

Perhaps the purchaser should have signed a more watertight contract with the developer. Last time I checked, contracts where pretty well enforced in most of the western/developed world (and to greater/lesser extent in other parts of the world)


More information about the thelist mailing list