Quote:
Originally Posted by TheDoc
gideongallery.... the shit just keeps spewing from you.
The United States Supreme Court frequently refers to a patent as providing a "limited monopoly." This is not, however, appropriate usage of the term monopoly in the economic sense. In fact, intellectual property protection cannot properly be thought of as providing an economic monopoly, at least in part, because a monopoly can only exist in the presence of a market and the ability of an actor to manipulate the market to a point where higher than competitive prices are able to be maintained, which is something that is rarely achievable by an owner of intellectual property.
Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelle...poly_privilege |
wow a pro intellectual property says that court definition isn't right
http://ipwatchdog.com/2010/03/06/deb...opoly/id=9538/
considering that one of the questions asked was
Quote:
|
why would average Joe subscribe to cable if YOU are making it avaliable to watch for him for FREE ONLINE?
|
by definition copyright allows you to raise the price from market defined price of free to something greater than free.
The fact that digital goods gravitate to free may be a justification for having the monopoly
but it most certainly does not allow you ignore the fact that you are in fact charging a price higher than what open competition would cause the price to be (free).