From cube-lovers-errors@mc.lcs.mit.edu Mon Mar 9 10:21:54 1998 Return-Path: Received: from sun28.aic.nrl.navy.mil by mc.lcs.mit.edu (8.8.1/mc) with SMTP id KAA06825; Mon, 9 Mar 1998 10:21:54 -0500 (EST) Precedence: bulk Errors-To: cube-lovers-errors@mc.lcs.mit.edu Mail-from: From cube-lovers-request@life.ai.mit.edu Sun Mar 8 18:58:07 1998 Message-Id: <9803082359.AA00210@jrdmax.jrd.dec.com> Date: Mon, 9 Mar 98 08:59:07 +0900 From: Norman Diamond 09-Mar-1998 0859 To: cube-lovers@ai.mit.edu Subject: Re: Taiwanese Invention of the Cube? Reply-To: diamond@jrdv04.enet.dec-j.co.jp, whuang@ugcs.caltech.edu Wei-Hwa Huang replied to me: >>As for patenting, somehow the mixture of "patent" and "Taiwan" in the >>same sentence strikes me as an oxymoron. >>Somehow the mixture of "trademark" and "Taiwan" strikes me as an >>oxymoron too, even though they're not in the same sentence. >>Want to try "copyright" next? :-) >Is it possible to copyright the Cube? That's why I didn't try it. Some puzzle designers do copyright their designs. When one compares patents with copyrights, copyright makes sense. Patents are intended for inventions that improve the quality of life and will become important in industry after the patents expire, so that the inventors starve. Copyrights are for frivolous entertainment like puzzles and photos, so they bring royalties for the lifetime of the creator plus 50 years to the heirs. One can only wonder why patents were ever granted for puzzles. >In any case, stop sneering -- Taiwan has local copyright, trademark, >and patent laws, and has had them for decades. Sure, they haven't >honored international copyright laws, Guess which part of that I was sneering at. >but then again, most other countries don't think Taiwan exists as an >independent country. The Republic of China also thinks Taiwan doesn't exist as an independent country. >When it became economically viable to honor international >copyright, they did so -- such legislation was passed in 1994. >Perhaps you are getting a biased view from living in Japan? No, my unbiased view was based on observations that I had made for decades. ===== Mr. Huang and I had this discussion in private e-mail already. I didn't know that he was going public with it too. Anyway if I understand correctly, Mr. Huang agreed with my point after that, so there's no need to repeat the rest of the discussion unless I misunderstood. [Moderator's note: In any event, further discussion on this topic should be sent to Wei-Hwa Huang and Norman Diamond, rather than to cube-lovers. I somewhat regret passing _any_ of it on. The topic of intellectual property and its legal status is vast, and has eaten bigger lists than this. ] ===== -- Norman Diamond diamond@jrdv04.enet.dec-j.co.jp [Speaking for Norman Diamond not for Digital.]