Subject: Re: The term "intellectual property" considered useful
From: "Stephen J. Turnbull" <turnbull@sk.tsukuba.ac.jp>
Date: Sat, 27 May 2006 22:33:35 +0900

>>>>> "David" == David H Lynch, <David> writes:

    David> Stephen J. Turnbull wrote:

    >> If you want to discuss "what the patent is for", you need to
    >> present the *claims* made by the patent.  Each claim
    >> establishes a context for the use of the algorithm, and it is
    >> in that context that an exclusive monopoly is granted.  There
    >> is no monopoly granted on use of the algorithm outside of the
    >> contexts enumerated in the claims.

    David>     You have lept backward from a theoretical discussion
    David> albeit using a real example back into the institutional and
    David> legal context we are in at the moment.
  
    David>       Why do I have to start with your presumptions ?

You don't "have to" do anything on my say-so.  However, my
"presumptions" are "not just a good idea, they are the law."  :-)  My
statement was a paraphrase of the legal *definition* of patent, not an
"example".

I simply wanted to point out that IMHO the discussion has nothing to
do with any reality that's on-topic for FSB until it treats the role
of "claims".

-- 
Graduate School of Systems and Information Engineering   University of Tsukuba
http://turnbull.sk.tsukuba.ac.jp/        Tennodai 1-1-1 Tsukuba 305-8573 JAPAN
        Economics of Information Communication and Computation Systems
          Experimental Economics, Microeconomic Theory, Game Theory