tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post5635891492226608398..comments2024-03-18T17:10:35.838+00:00Comments on The IPKat: AIPPI/AIPLA Event: Copyright in a digital age - US and UK perspectivesVerónica RodrÃguez Arguijohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05763207846940036921noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-89051806184261079012017-06-20T16:36:25.264+01:002017-06-20T16:36:25.264+01:00this unnecessary comment, although correct in its ...this unnecessary comment, although correct in its onjective meaning, clearly define the concept of saltyiness and by no means has any respect for the author of the article. <br /><br />Even a simple mind can understand that the "subject matter" in the contested sentence must be referred to the arising role of copyright in the technological field, rather than to a debate on what patent protects and what copyright protects. <br /><br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-37287823056883383312017-06-10T15:53:34.981+01:002017-06-10T15:53:34.981+01:00I must take issue with the statement of:
"Th...I must take issue with the statement of:<br /><br />"<i>The incredible developments in technology - how information is created, by what technological process, how information is accessed and where it is used - means the subject matter once the purvey of the patent world has crossed into the copyright realm.</i>"<br /><br />It is not only incorrect, but troubling so, to think that that a person charted with writing on the subject does not understand that the <b>subject matter</b> of what patents protect and what copyright protects has "crossed into."<br /><br />The subject matter <b>remains</b> clearly different between the different areas of Intellectual Property protection.<br /><br />What perhaps has "crossed into" (and certainly, this crossing has been going on now for many decades) is that a particular manufacture of the hand of man (as those terms are understood in the various Intellectual Property legal terrains), has <b>multiple</b> aspects, each of which may earn protections in the different IP areas.<br /><br />This is most definitely NOT a matter of "subject matter" crossing from one IP terrain into another.<br /><br />Patents still protect that which patents protect.<br />Copyrights still protects that which copyrights protect.<br /><br />It is decidedly unhelpful to contribute to the view that somehow "subject matter" is "crossing into" one IP arena from another IP arena - and shows that the author lacks a grasp of what the subject matter in each STILL means.THE US anonnoreply@blogger.com