Template:Derived information: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{confiprov|Derived information}}, the fecund fruits of the {{confiprov|receiver}}’s own creative juice and analytical energy, is in no sense proprietary to the {{confiprov|disclosing party}}, and may indeed be as commercially sensitive to the {{confiprov|receiving party}} as the material the disclosing party gave, and on which it was based, it in the first place. Think Paul’s middle eight about having a shave and catching the bus in ''A Day in the Life''. We are in danger of getting into the [[jurisprudence|jurisprudential]] wisdom of treating intellectual endeavour as if it were tangible property - but let’s not go there just not<ref>Those who can’t resist the siren call, start with [[Lawrence Lessig]]’s fabulous {{br|Code: Version 2.0}}.</ref> | ==={{confiprov|Derived information}}=== | ||
{{confiprov|Derived information}}, the fecund fruits of the {{confiprov|receiver}}’s own creative juice and analytical energy, is in no sense [[proprietary]] to the {{confiprov|disclosing party}}<ref>If the {{confiprov|disclosed information}} ever was [[proprietary]] in the first place — if it doesn’t qualify as [[intellectual property]] it isn’t, or course.</ref>, and may indeed be as commercially sensitive to the {{confiprov|receiving party}} as the material the disclosing party gave, and on which it was based, it in the first place. Think Paul’s middle eight about having a shave and catching the bus in ''A Day in the Life''. We are in danger of getting into the [[jurisprudence|jurisprudential]] wisdom of treating intellectual endeavour as if it were tangible property - but let’s not go there just not<ref>Those who can’t resist the siren call, start with [[Lawrence Lessig]]’s fabulous {{br|Code: Version 2.0}}.</ref> | |||
Revision as of 10:09, 14 June 2019
Derived information
Derived information, the fecund fruits of the receiver’s own creative juice and analytical energy, is in no sense proprietary to the disclosing party[1], and may indeed be as commercially sensitive to the receiving party as the material the disclosing party gave, and on which it was based, it in the first place. Think Paul’s middle eight about having a shave and catching the bus in A Day in the Life. We are in danger of getting into the jurisprudential wisdom of treating intellectual endeavour as if it were tangible property - but let’s not go there just not[2]
- ↑ If the disclosed information ever was proprietary in the first place — if it doesn’t qualify as intellectual property it isn’t, or course.
- ↑ Those who can’t resist the siren call, start with Lawrence Lessig’s fabulous Code: Version 2.0.