|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, October 16 2012 @ 12:27 PM EDT |
The point is that objects are "real" by definition, not by some
empirical test. There is no test for how "real" or "virtual"
a concept is. We merely agree that if enough of us see it, it is real.
I agree that this is currently a rather abstract point, but as time goes on the
distinction will be blurred.
For a slightly more realistic case, take a film example:
Film constitutes a facsimile of a "real" object. In the case of some
patented invention which produces a visual effect (a type of firework, say),
some would argue that use of an unlicensed copy of the patented item in a film
would be infringing. The filmmaker, after all, has gained the benefit of the
patented item without licensing. If the entire purpose of the invention is to be
visually interesting, how could we not enforce the patent here?
If, however, the object in question were a cotton gin, and the video merely
displayed the cotton gin, would this be infringing? Is the facsimile of the
cotton gin a "real" implementation of the invention, subject to patent
enforcement? I hope we can agree that it would not.
A host of intermediate cases can be presented, but the point is that there is
some ambiguity in the case of simulated copies of an invention. The
"reality" of the film is the same in all cases, but simply asking
whether it is a symbol or a "real" object does not settle the case.
Now what a physical computer model was used to exactly implement the visually
interesting invention? Does the computer-copy of the invention infringe? If it
is the same functional invention by way of a complex computer model, does this
alter enforceability?[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|
