Dig deep enough and you'll find evidence of other semiotic conspiracy taking
advantage of intellectual property law pragmatics. Try
Inventing Brands: Opportunities at the Nexus of Semiotics and
Intellectual
Property (PDF, 614 KB). Where we find Apple's present practice appears
learned from Jobs association with Disney through Pixar.
It puts the claim
practice we see in software patents in a new light, organized advantage taking
of 'weaknesses' in the patent system to obscure the law. Today wherever
possible ยง101 subject matter eligibility is a last resort.
Push on semiotics
and pragmatics hard enough and the legal community just might wake up. It beats
being inundated by patent trolls or transferring the ability to innovate solely
to large corporations. The balance of protecting business models and promoting
the sciences and arts appears off kilter.
Consider the possibility that
instead of requiring software patents to keep up with modern innovation,
blindness to semiotics is actually costing society by business models
intertwining with intellectual property protections to extend to ownership of
abstract ideas.
There's a book The Objects of Affection: Semiotics and Consumer Culture (Semiotics and
Popular Culture) whose description includes "With levity and precision,
Berger leads students to think critically about our lives and the menu of
lifestyles promoted by corporations that profit from branded consumption." What
we have here is a failure to communicate promoting branded innovation.
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
| 
