82,891
edits
Template:Derived information: Difference between revisions
no edit summary
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, worked upon information given to the {{confiprov|receiver}} by the {{confiprov|discloser}}, is in no sense “[[proprietary]]” to the {{confiprov|disclosing party}}<ref>If the {{confiprov|disclosed information}} ever was [[proprietary]] in the first place, that is — if it doesn’t qualify as [[intellectual property]] it isn’t, or course.</ref> | {{confiprov|Derived information}}, the fecund fruits of the {{confiprov|receiver}}’s own creative juice and analytical energy, worked upon information given to the {{confiprov|receiver}} by the {{confiprov|discloser}}, is in no sense “[[proprietary]]” to the {{confiprov|disclosing party}},<ref>If the {{confiprov|disclosed information}} ever was [[proprietary]] in the first place, that is — if it doesn’t qualify as [[intellectual property]] it isn’t, or course.</ref> and may indeed be as commercially sensitive<ref>And ''more deserving of intellectual property protection'': applying some analytics to raw trading data may convert it from un-ownable data to creatively juicy [[intellectual property]], of course.</ref> to the {{confiprov|receiving party}} as the material the disclosing party gave, and on which it was based, it in the first place: think of 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 now.<ref>Those who can’t resist the siren call, start with [[Lawrence Lessig]]’s fabulous {{br|Code: Version 2.0}}.</ref> | ||
Actually, no: let’s do go there. If the {{confiprov|information}} in question not, in the first place, ''mine'' — that is to say, it isn’t [[intellectual property]] in the first place, then the question arises ''why'' I should be able to stop you deriving your own intellectual property out of it. This boils down to whether it was just secret data, but didn’t have any proprietary qualities, or whether it can be somehow configured as proprietary, ''owned'' information. | Actually, no: let’s do go there. If the {{confiprov|information}} in question not, in the first place, ''mine'' — that is to say, it isn’t [[intellectual property]] in the first place, then the question arises ''why'' I should be able to stop you deriving your own intellectual property out of it. This boils down to whether it was just secret data, but didn’t have any proprietary qualities, or whether it can be somehow configured as proprietary, ''owned'' information. | ||