Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Check out the new SourceForge HTML5 internet speed test! No Flash necessary and runs on all devices. ×
Education

Canadian University Students Taught To Protect IP 174

innocent_white_lamb writes "Graduate students at Carleton University (Ottawa) are taking steps to protect their intellectual property, at the same time are insuring that they are being properly recognized for their work. This is in response to the increased commercialization of research done at universities, and high-profile cases of copyright infringement by professors at the University of Toronto and Indiana University. 'The initiative will include workshops and a handbook outlining what would constitute an infraction of students' intellectual property rights, Howlett said. Examples include a student not receiving authorship on written work, or having a professor take credit for their work. "This isn't an indictment of profs at all," said Howlett. "It's just to ensure that students' rights are protected in the case that it does happen."'"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Canadian University Students Taught To Protect IP

Comments Filter:
  • This is ridiculous (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Sunday April 08, 2007 @06:44PM (#18658703)
    Oh for the days when universities were places for learning and not little more than businesses and when the students were more focussed on learning than making a quick buck or some recognition.
    • by Anonymous Coward on Sunday April 08, 2007 @06:58PM (#18658791)
      I'm not sure if you're aware of it or not, but Ottawa is Canada's equivalent of Silicon Valley. There are a number of high-tech giants in that area with significant R&D facilities, including Nortel, Corel and IBM. Much of IBM's work on Eclipse is done at their Ottawa labs, for instance. Waterloo, where I attended university, is growing quite significant in this area, as well. But Ottawa is still the leader.

      Carleton University has had close industrial ties for years. Michael Cowpland, of Mitel and Corel fame, earned his masters and doctorate from Carleton. This close relationship with industry is a good thing, as many of these companies have in turn provided financial support to Carleton for a variety of initiatives. According to relatives of mine who study there, companies like Nortel and March Networks have funded various engineering laboratories. The university likely would not have had such labs were it not for the financial support from industry.

      From what I hear from my relatives, Carleton does need to be more careful about their commercial collaborations. But it's not in the area of engineering or design. It's when it comes to their food services. An exclusivity contract with Coca Cola apparently results in there being only Coke available on that campus. Similarly, the company they contract out their food services to, Aramark, provides terrible service and terrible food, but is willing to charge students an arm and a leg.

      So Carleton probably has the right idea collaborating with industry when it comes to their research. But their collaboration with companies for various services on-campus should probably be reconsidered.

      • by Skreems ( 598317 )

        From what I hear from my relatives, Carleton does need to be more careful about their commercial collaborations. But it's not in the area of engineering or design. It's when it comes to their food services. An exclusivity contract with Coca Cola apparently results in there being only Coke available on that campus.
        American universities do the same thing. It's nothing new.
      • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

        by jcorno ( 889560 )

        An exclusivity contract with Coca Cola apparently results in there being only Coke available on that campus.


        Georgia Tech has the same deal. We had the only Pizza Hut in the world that served Coke products (Pizza Hut was owned by Pepsi). It may still be the only one. Doesn't make it any cheaper, though. It's up to $1.40 for a bottle now. The difference all goes to the school.
      • I'm not sure if you're aware of it or not, but Ottawa is Canada's equivalent of Silicon Valley.

        I am so tired of this canard. I worked at Mitel in Kanata in the 1980's, and people were saying the same BS back then. Markham, a suburb of Toronto, had more high tech employees then, and has more high tech employees now. Sure BNR had big labs there, but they also had a bunch of labs scattered across Toronto. IBM has huge plants, although some of them were turned over to Celestica. Just drive up the 404, and yo

      • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

        by FooAtWFU ( 699187 )
        On a tangential note, I go to Wake Forest University. We also have an exclusive foodservice contract with Aramark. The food and service isn't terrible, but it's not too grand, and it certainly does cost an arm and a leg and is (as of fall 2005) mandatory for all students - with new freshman required to have a minimum of something like 10 meals a week, I think it was.

        We used to be an exclusively Pepsi school, but I do think this has changed now.

        • by Seek_1 ( 639070 )
          Well then I can tell you with relative certainty that the services Aramark provides must be radically different at Wake Forest than they are at U of O (where I went to school).

          I went to the University of Ottawa for four years and avoided using the cafeterias and meal plan as much as possible. The workers from Aramark were unfriendly, didn't care a thing about customer satisfaction and were at many times rude. The food choices have gotten better since I had the meal plan, but that I believe the attitude and
      • by CastrTroy ( 595695 ) on Sunday April 08, 2007 @09:30PM (#18659639) Homepage
        I went to University of Ottawa, the other university in Ottawa. Aramark does have terrible food. Aramark owns food service for just about the entire school. Not only does the food suck, but they won't hire students to work at the facilities. Again, Coke bought U of O too, so nothing but coke. I don't think this is different from many other universities, I think a lot of schools do this. I not really against it. If it lowers tuition for the students, then it's fine. If you don't want to drink coke, then you can still bring your own drinks on campus. Funny story, somebody started a campaign to take down the Christmas lights because they were red and white, and thought they were a big Coke advertisement. Never mind that red and white are traditional Christmas colours.
      • by Gorshkov ( 932507 ) <AdmiralGorshkov@@@gmail...com> on Monday April 09, 2007 @01:07AM (#18660419)
        Disclaimer: Carleton is my Alma Mater

        Carleton is very, very different from most universities. Last time I saw statistics, around 3/4 of the students were part-time students .... that, btw, is one of the major reasons why it used to do so horribly in the MacLain's annual university ratings.

        Carleton is generally geared more towards continuing and part-time education, rather than simply being a "standard" undergraduate university. You'll have people taking their 2nd & 3rd degrees, upgrading their qualifications, or just taking interest courses.

        Many of it's services are (were?) geared towards these students. And I suspect that the nature of the students - people with real-world experience, and thus more awareness of these issues - may have something to do with this.
      • Re: (Score:2, Interesting)

        I'm not directly disputing what you've said, but I'd argue that Waterloo is becoming more and more of the tech giant that you're making Ottawa out to be. The University of Waterloo is known internationally for its technology-related programs, and it is highly competitive. Waterloo is the place to be if you want a tech job -- I'm told it's the only place in Canada that Google has a co-op agreement with. It's not uncommon to hear of big name tech industry speakers heading over to Waterloo to make speeches
    • by melikamp ( 631205 ) on Sunday April 08, 2007 @07:12PM (#18658853) Homepage Journal
      Mods?... The parent is far from OT. That was the first thing in my mind as well: how universities are becoming a place where people are taught to own and protect their ideas. Historically, a university was a place where scholars engaged in sharing of their ideas, where the free flow of information was encouraged. Modern universities, otoh, are built after an industrial model. Their curricula are fixed and their original research is sometimes regarded as a trade secret. An awful place to do science at.
      • by moosesocks ( 264553 ) on Sunday April 08, 2007 @08:46PM (#18659407) Homepage
        Please RTFA. It looks like this "course" is intended to teach students to make sure that they get credit for their research and work.

        Although I do agree that any obstruction of the free flow of information is detrimental to science and academia, I don't think that's the point of this initiative.

        If your research is quoted/copied by another scientist (especially, one who is more reputable than you are) without proper citation, it can completely destroy your credibility, and severely hurt when applying for grants or being considered for tenure.

        I really don't see anything wrong with this. Like TFA said, there have been several high-profile copyright infringement cases lately, and you'd be a fool not to protect yourself.

        This famously happened with some of the original AIDS research in the 80s (that first identified HIV as a retrovirus), where the group of CDC epidemiologists who spearheaded the research received little to no credit for their work once conclusive evidence was found.
    • Re: (Score:1, Interesting)

      by Anonymous Coward

      when the students were more focussed on learning than making a quick buck or some recognition.

      Hey, all that I want to do is do my research and create novel things. I do want to get the credit for it too though, and I don't want someone else to steal my work and profit from it -- that way, I can continue doing it.

      I've had a course project used by a prof to get a grant. Did I see any of that grant money? Nope. In fact, my funding was being threatened a couple of months later. What did I learn? If I inve

      • by Foobar of Borg ( 690622 ) on Sunday April 08, 2007 @08:34PM (#18659323)

        What did I learn? If I invent something as a student, a prof will get the credit for it, and I am better off sitting on my ideas until after I graduate -- it's sad that I can't wait to graduate so that I can do my research -- it's sadder that I won't be able to.
        It's even worse in most American universities. While Canadian graduate students are being taught to protect their IP, graduate students at most American universities have to sign a waiver of their rights to anything they discover just to be able to go to graduate school. So, if you are a graduate student in an American university, then yes you certainly should sit on something truly inventive that you discover until after you graduate. Also, make sure you get rid of anything traceable to University equipment and recreate it after you leave.
        • by dlevitan ( 132062 ) on Sunday April 08, 2007 @11:13PM (#18660025)

          It's even worse in most American universities. While Canadian graduate students are being taught to protect their IP, graduate students at most American universities have to sign a waiver of their rights to anything they discover just to be able to go to graduate school. So, if you are a graduate student in an American university, then yes you certainly should sit on something truly inventive that you discover until after you graduate. Also, make sure you get rid of anything traceable to University equipment and recreate it after you leave.
          I don't see the problem with this. I'm starting grad school this Fall, and I'm getting paid to do research. Why should I be allowed to keep anything I discover if I'm being paid to do the research by someone else? I don't know what you've had to sign, but my waiver basically said the following things:

          1. Since you're a student, if you're not being paid to do research and don't use university equipment, you keep whatever you discover.
          2. If you are being paid, you're treated like an employee. Employees must sign all patents to the University. The University then decides if it wants to market the patent. If the patent is successfully licensed to someone and a profit is made, the profit is split between the inventor and the university (either 50-50 or 25-75 depending on the circumstances). Otherwise, the patent is returned to you.

          I actually like this idea. I want to do research. If I discover something along the way, I don't have to deal with any bureaucracy and still get a nice bonus if my invention is successful.
          • I hope you find something earth shattering.

            And then find out quite how equitable the deal your signing really is.

            You're going to get roasted. Grow up little boy.
          • by Rac3r5 ( 804639 )
            "1. Since you're a student, if you're not being paid to do research and don't use university equipment, you keep whatever you discover.
            2. If you are being paid, you're treated like an employee. Employees must sign all patents to the University. The University then decides if it wants to market the patent. If the patent is successfully licensed to someone and a profit is made, the profit is split between the inventor and the university (either 50-50 or 25-75 depending on the circumstances). Otherwise, the pa
        • by Rakishi ( 759894 )
          That didn't stop Google from becoming successful now did it?
    • by smchris ( 464899 )
      No kidding.

      My first response was: "And....why? Commercialization has done so much to foster communication and intellectual synergy in the U.S., hasn't it?" And the products, whose research we've paid for, are so affordable when the patent is licensed to a monopoly.

      Oh, right. I forgot. It would be communism to promote affordable public higher education so universities _have_ to become business enterprises.

      Geez, sometimes I feel so sorry for kids today. I think a state college credit was about $12 in my
    • by XL70E3 ( 574496 ) *
      I was taught to protect my ideas too(university of quebec), and, you know after hearing all those things about IPs being stolen, concepts being slightly modified by other people to make em theirs.. i understand the point of it. And guess what, a lot of teachers in universities comes from private companies or are self-employed. So there you have the culture of protecting your IPS. As for myself, i was taugh to be careful with ideas and copyrights. I wasnt told to put a copyright on every damn thought. I thi
    • Basically what they want taught is that no information should be shared unless money changes hands.

      How are ya doin', Bob?

      Gimme a dollar, and I'll tell ya, eh?

      Think it'll rain tomorrow?

      Wouldn't want to say. You might take that info and parlay it on raincoat futures, make a fortune, and not give me what's rightfully mine.
    • by asninn ( 1071320 )
      Oh for the days when universities were places for teaching and not little more than businesses and when professors were more focussed on teaching than making a quick buck by ripping off their students' work.
  • by StikyPad ( 445176 ) on Sunday April 08, 2007 @06:45PM (#18658711) Homepage
    Don't protect it.. tell everyone that IP, freely!
  • Excellent! (Score:3, Interesting)

    by vertigoCiel ( 1070374 ) on Sunday April 08, 2007 @06:45PM (#18658713)
    Always good for someone to own the rights to research they've done. In the age of disregard for IP, I'm not sure how much it will do, but it's certainly a step in the right direction.
    • Re: (Score:1, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward
      Well, it's a step in the right direction insofar as more people will be aware assinine I"P" laws exist. But it's vital people also learn that I"P" laws as they currently stand, like slavery, belong in the pages of history books. You don't need to be able to stop me passing on information to prevent plagiarism - if I say "vertigoCiel said XYZ" I have not plagiarised - but I may have infringed on your copyright preventing redistribution of XYZ. Most academics are against willful plagiarism, but you don't
    • Re:Excellent! (Score:4, Interesting)

      by argoff ( 142580 ) * on Sunday April 08, 2007 @07:06PM (#18658817)
      A step in the right direction would be to kill copyright monopolies entirely.
      • Re: (Score:2, Interesting)

        Microsoft might agree with you there. They have the infrastructure and the enforcement muscle to use Trade Secret protection to keep their revenue stream coming in. And they'd love for there to be no mechanism whatsoever for the GPL to be enforced.

        You're really a sharp fellow, you know.
      • A step in the right direction would be to kill copyright monopolies entirely.

        i personally think that killing copyright entirely would be a very bad idea. things such as the GPL and creative commons licencing (not 100% sure on the latter) rely on copyright law, so killing copyright would kill those too.

        that said, the copyright term needs to be cutdown significantly, such as back to the original term (7 years and the option for a one-time 7 year extension, for a maximum of 14 years), which i feel is a comple
        • First, the term was 14+14 for a total of 28. Second, while a shorter term is certainly called for, it's probably better if we avoid automatically using numbers that made sense in the 18th century and instead figure out what numbers make sense now (with regard to term length, number of terms, and number of renewals; i.e. maybe 7+7+7+7 is better than 14+14, or maybe 2+2+2+2+2+2+2+2+2+2 is better than both). Third, there are other things that need to be fixed besides term length. If all that is fixed is term l
  • what does it say about turnitin.com?
    Do the students need to use it as part of there classes?
    • Re:turnitin.com (Score:5, Informative)

      by RockoTDF ( 1042780 ) on Sunday April 08, 2007 @07:17PM (#18658875) Homepage
      This is referring to student research outside of the classroom, which the majority of students do not participate in, it has nothing to do with term papers and all that plagiarism debate going on /. lately. The idea here is not so much "IP" in the traditional sense, but rather to stop students who are research assistants from being screwed over by some professor who wants sole credit on a publication. I have work getting published, and while I (and most anyone who does academic research) do not want people to have to pay to cite us or just read our work, you can bet your ass we want our names in there though. If anything, this is showing students how to basically open source their work and not let other people take credit for it. I have the good fortune of dealing with profs who will give students primary authorship if the kid did more work than they did, so this thing isn't much of an issue to me personally. This is not teaching students to commercialize their research, in fact that goes against the very nature of scientific research and intellectual advancement.
  • not IP (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Mr. Slippery ( 47854 ) <tms@[ ]amous.net ['inf' in gap]> on Sunday April 08, 2007 @06:57PM (#18658787) Homepage

    Examples include a student not receiving authorship on written work, or having a professor take credit for their work.

    These are not "intellectual property" rights, they are "moral rights" [wikipedia.org] of authors.

    The distinction is important because one can be opposed to copyright as an artifical right created by the state but still be in favor of natural moral rights.

    I don't think it's just to use force to prevent you from making a copy of one of my poems; but represent yourself as its author and I'll kick your ass.

    • Re: (Score:2, Informative)

      by DrMindWarp ( 663427 )
      Moral rights are traditionally part of IP law. Your distinction is not so clear cut either - moral rights may include (depending on the applicable law) the right not to have a work included with others where it might be demeaned, for example. So you cannot permit copies arbitrarily and still assert all your moral rights. They are closely linked.
    • These are not "intellectual property" rights, they are "moral rights" of authors.

      The distinction is important because one can be opposed to copyright as an artifical right created by the state but still be in favor of natural moral rights.


      I think you'll find that they are both artificial rights created by the state.

      But I agree, the distinction is important: copyrights of any kind exist solely to benefit the public, which has equal interests in 1) having works created and published, and 2) being absolutely f
      • It's important to academics. Almost no one of them would disclosure their findings without a reward system (recognition is a substitute for patents here, works even where the latter can't be applied and does a much lower colateral damage). Otherwise most would clearly work on more mundane things and keep their findings to themselves (or patent them) or either simply stop studing earlier and never go to academia.

        And there was almost no serious science done before the system was stablished. Some people even

    • by Mr2001 ( 90979 )

      The distinction is important because one can be opposed to copyright as an artifical right created by the state but still be in favor of natural moral rights.

      I agree with the goal but not this justification. I don't think there's any "natural", "moral" right to have your name associated with anything.

      Associating your name with someone else's work, or vice versa, is still wrong - not because the real author owns the work in any sense, but because misrepresenting the authorship is fraud. If I take your comment and repost it as my own work, then I'm lying to everyone who reads it.

      • Legally, the definition of fraud usually involves some intent to harm or profit in some way. If I took you poems and placed them on the Internet because i liked them and claimed they were things I was thinking about during troubled time, Not legal fraud has been committed in most territories.

        This wouldn't protect you in the way I think you were hoping it too. Fraud has a loose definition but when we are talking of legalities, we need to seek the narrow legal definition. I just looked and there is nothing in
        • by Mr2001 ( 90979 )

          Legally, the definition of fraud usually involves some intent to harm or profit in some way.

          If you're putting your name on a paper in order to get funding or credibility, I'd consider that profit. In any case, I'm not opposed to broadening the legal definition of fraud to cover serious plagiarism.

          And in at least one case, It would look as if the government tried to use fraud for copyright violations but couldn't.

          At a brief glance, that case looks like plain old copyright infringement, not plagiarism, so I don't see the problem.

          • If you're putting your name on a paper in order to get funding or credibility, I'd consider that profit. In any case, I'm not opposed to broadening the legal definition of fraud to cover serious plagiarism.

            That is fine then. I was just attempting to point out that Fraud laws would need to be changed to include the acts. I do question how much changing could be done without just making the fraud provisions in law a new copyright act though.

            Outside it being an exorcise in common sense and name changing, I'

  • by rolfwind ( 528248 ) on Sunday April 08, 2007 @07:06PM (#18658821)
    Is this a good thing that students get protected from the random professor who preys on a student's work and makes it their own or are we teaching values and mistrust now at that are at odds with a mostly open society and education?

    I'm not against students recieving credit, but as with patents, I'm against people ardently claiming credit for the most insignificant things.
    • Re: (Score:2, Informative)

      by Anonymous Coward
      Clearly, you haven't gone to graduate school. If you had, you would be aware that most research is done by students. Professors act more as editors than as authors, though often times they take most of the credit.
      • You're correct, I jumped the gun a bit. I looked at the article again and it is indeed referring to Graduate School students, and not undergraduate, where I believe they are usually at a level where such a warning is warranted.
  • Useful information (Score:4, Informative)

    by EvilGoodGuy ( 811015 ) on Sunday April 08, 2007 @07:10PM (#18658837)
    As a Computer Science student, I feel that I'm being taught pretty well what to look out for, and how to protect my rights. And at least where to go, or who to ask if I have concerns. I'm not sure how other majors are at my school though. While related to everyone in any career area, I know that Computer Science views IP as a pretty high priority.
  • Bad examples. (Score:5, Interesting)

    by lancejjj ( 924211 ) on Sunday April 08, 2007 @07:11PM (#18658849) Homepage

    Examples [of an infraction of students' intellectual property rights] include a student not receiving authorship on written work, or having a professor take credit for their work.
    The rules often change if you get paid.

    Employment contracts often stipulate that the employee has relinquished intellectual property rights in the field of business of the employer.

    This same idea often applied to graduate students that are paid to help out a professor.

    If an employer paid you to write a chapter for a book or to invent a widget, you may not have any intellectual property rights over that work.

    If you helped a professor in a lab - and if he's paying you under terms of an employment agreement, that agreement could very well stipulate that you have relinquished all IP rights. Read that agreement before you start to work. If you have a problem with it, negotiate the contractual terms.

    This is how a company can "award" employee a $200 "bonus" for an invention that's worth millions of dollars.
    • by Anonymous Coward
      There can still be some pretty extreme cases that are clearly wrong. A friend of mine was a grad student at the UW-Madison where she wrote a paper (she was the first author, and the professor was the 2nd). When the professor submitted the paper, the porf switched the order of the names (made themselves fist). When the paper came back from review, the prof switched the order back, so to the student it still looked like they were the first author. This was all done in Microsoft word, with reversion history be
      • by mikael ( 484 )
        When the professor submitted the paper, the porf switched the order of the names (made themselves fist). When the paper came back from review, the prof switched the order back, so to the student it still looked like they were the first author.

        That seems odd. Normally, when a paper is reviewed all references to the authors are removed to prevent any prejudices/favouritism from creeping in (At least for UK journals).
    • by jez9999 ( 618189 )
      Sod being paid; my university seizes all the IP to my final year project (thesis)! This is presumably so they can showcase it in their school building if they feel like it, but I presume I couldn't sell it to someone. I don't like it, but what am I meant to do to 'protect' it? They can refuse to mark it and give me a degree.
  • Extreme danger (Score:4, Insightful)

    by IgnoramusMaximus ( 692000 ) on Sunday April 08, 2007 @07:21PM (#18658909)

    If any sort of this nonsensical "Intellectual Property" will become the standard way of producing research results (as opposed to old-fashioned attribution, to which the students have full rights and the University a moral obligation to protect) then this will mean the death of acedemic science. Period.

    If every piece of every half-baked paper will cost $50 to read it, a typical researcher will end up with no viable access to any sort of external research.

    But of course the further escalation of "Intellectual Property"-related stupidities is only bound to increase in pace, given how hell bent the "opinion makers" are on introducing greed "motivators" where they were never needed or wanted in order to divide and parcel out the body of human knowledge amongst the "worthy" mega-corporations and billionaires who will become the de-facto gate-keepers to that knowledge and subsequently, for all practical purposes, Lords and Masters of the rest of the humanity.

    I foresee troubled waters ahead.

    • You should be more careful where you post your valuable intellectual property. By putting it here on Slashdot, many people can use it without compensating you for the effort that went into it. You should have saved it on your hard drive and never posted it, or better yet, never even saved it. That would protect it much better!

      (yes, this growing meme of IP and constant restriction troubles me too)
    • If any sort of this nonsensical "Intellectual Property" will become the standard way of producing research results (as opposed to old-fashioned attribution, to which the students have full rights and the University a moral obligation to protect) then this will mean the death of acedemic science. Period.

      If every piece of every half-baked paper will cost $50 to read it, a typical researcher will end up with no viable access to any sort of external research.

      The obvious citation here: Richard Stallman's "The [gnu.org]

    • If every piece of every half-baked paper will cost $50 to read it, a typical researcher will end up with no viable access to any sort of external research.

      Makes it easier to ign^H^H^Hdiscuss related work in your papers: the author controls the amount reviewers had to spent to verify claims and check for omissions.

  • Colore me confused (Score:4, Interesting)

    by The Dobber ( 576407 ) on Sunday April 08, 2007 @07:35PM (#18658981)
    -Protect IP

    -Patents bad

    -Steal the music

  • by voice_of_all_reason ( 926702 ) on Sunday April 08, 2007 @07:42PM (#18659023)
    This isn't an indictment of profs at all," said Howlett.

    If the whole IP system is guilty, then isn't this an indictment of our educational institutions in general? I put it to you - isn't this an indictment of our entire American society? Well, you can do whatever you want to us, but we're not going to sit here and listen to you badmouth the United States of America. Gentlemen!
  • Good example of this here [worsethanfailure.com]
    Comments have more examples...
  • At least someone is teaching ethics. Nice to see the pedulum might be swinging back away from the selfish "I want it so I have a right to copy it" crowd.

    • Re:Ethics (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Locklin ( 1074657 ) on Sunday April 08, 2007 @08:30PM (#18659287) Homepage
      This is very different from copyright enforcement. This is about attribution. Huge difference.

      Most graduate students would be more than happy to have thousands of people read their thesis. The problem arises when they don't get credited, or someone else claims ownership.

      This is very different from students wanting $20 from you to read their paper.
      • Someone give this guy some mod points, he just nailed the point I was basically trying to make earlier.
    • by Mr2001 ( 90979 )

      Nice to see the pedulum might be swinging back away from the selfish "I want it so I have a right to copy it" crowd.
      And back towards the selfish "I'm lazy so you have to keep paying me for work I did years ago" crowd?
      • by WED Fan ( 911325 )

        And back towards the selfish "I'm lazy so you have to keep paying me for work I did years ago" crowd?

        Your envy is showing.

        If what they produced years ago is still selling, that only means it still has value, and people still want it. So, why not get paid for it? You should try producing something of value that will be around for awhile. Bet you could do it. You just have to get off your...well, your father was probably right.

        • by Mr2001 ( 90979 )

          If what they produced years ago is still selling, that only means it still has value, and people still want it. So, why not get paid for it?

          Hey, what brilliant logic. Let's apply it to something else! Say you're a tailor, and Mr. Jones comes in for a suit, for which he pays you $1200. The suit is so impressive-looking that it seals the deal at Mr. Jones's job interview that afternoon, and he ends up landing a $500,000/yr position. Clearly that suit had a lot more value than you thought at first, right? So tell me, how much of that $500,000 does Mr. Jones owe you each year? He might not have gotten the position at all if he hadn't worn it, so d

          • by WED Fan ( 911325 )

            Hey, what brilliant logic. Let's apply it to something else! Say you're a tailor, and Mr. Jones comes in for a suit, for which he pays you $1200. The suit is so impressive-looking that it seals the deal at Mr. Jones's job interview that afternoon, and he ends up landing a $500,000/yr position. Clearly that suit had a lot more value than you thought at first, right? So tell me, how much of that $500,000 does Mr. Jones owe you each year? He might not have gotten the position at all if he hadn't worn it, so do

            • by Mr2001 ( 90979 )

              A better comparison is the taylor designs the suit pattern and licenses it. It becomes popular, for every suit sold with that pattern, he gets a cut. Later, the suit comes back in style, if the license is still valid, he still gets a cut of each suit sold that used the same pattern.

              Sure, why not! Why should he ever have to work again? He designed one suit, he should be able to retire and live like a king!

              Good luck, in life, with your economic model. It doesn't work in the real world, but if it makes you happy, more power to you.

              Actually, it does work quite well, and it's in use in nearly every industry except the few that are based on copyright.

              You see, "my economic model" is one where people who aren't selling a physical product get paid for the work they do, not the work they did 70 years ago. If you want to write a book, find someone (or a big group of someones) who wants a book written and get him to p

  • "Intellectual property" lol

    How many Carleton undergrads does it take to screw in a lightbulb?

    Just one, but he gets 3 credits for it.

    LOL

    (Seriously, it's like Canada's DeVry, except with lower standards)
  • How does public funded schools and scholarships fit into this.

    Surely if my tax dollars pay part of the tuition for the student copy writing everything he does as part of his education, then we deserve a portion of anything made from it.

    I don't think it will come to this, it doesn't with the patent the schools own because public money funded the research. I just don't think it is right, it should be public domain if public money was spent to develop it.
    • Surely if my tax dollars pay part of the tuition for the student copy writing everything he does as part of his education, then we deserve a portion of anything made from it.

      As a grad student at a Canadian university, let me tell you: pay us more if you ("the public") want to take a stake in our work. We're paid at essentially a subsistence level, not at a "work for hire" level.

      • If the tuition at the university is offset by public funds, you are already over paid for the effort. It is the public finds that gave you the position to do the work you claim ownership too. So at least while you enjoying it, the repayment should be public domain.

        And If you or your university didn't receive public funding, then do whatever you want. It doesn't concern us. I'm willing to bet that it would cost a lot more if public finds didn't go into it. You tell me.
  • Since I go to IU and I'm interested in intellectual property, I was surprised I didn't hear about this. Well I did a little digging and according to the article I found it seems like the professors named him as co-author on an article without telling him and he feels like they misrepresented his findings [foodhaccp.com]. Certainly it is a problem if the professors distorted his findings, but they did seem to give him proper credit. I'm not sure what that would be called, but it doesn't sound like plagiarism to me.
    • Oh, and it should be noted that one of the professors alleged to have misappropriated the article is a member of the faculty of IU-Kokomo [indiana.edu], a small satellite campus, and not the main IU campus at Bloomington.
  • and I think they're doing a great job at muddying the waters even more by calling it intellectual property (rights).
  • One has to wonder how many of the students that attend those workshops has a computer with pirated music and video.
  • == Grammar peeve alert. Skip it if you don't care about using the right word at the right time. ==

    They are not "insuring that they are being properly recognized" as the summary says. If they were insuring something, they would talk to an agent, get a policy, and pay premiums. Instead, they are ensuring recognition for their work.

  • "Intellectual property" is an absurd oxymoron. Any socioeconomic system that requires a concept of such a thing is truly twisted and outdated in the "Information Age."
    I expect to be modded as Overrated. But this is a sentiment I can't help but express strongly.
  • This reminds me of a lecture I had at my uni when I was taking e-business law and the topic was copyright and IP.
    The professor brought along this guy who said he came up with the concept of exciting the hydrogen atoms for imaging which is used in MRI's.
    The whole concept was the basis of his grad paper. While searching for a supervisor, his supervisor was reluctant to accept him based on the concept, but eventually did. After he finished his grad paper, his supervisor took credit for it. He said he let it go

Heuristics are bug ridden by definition. If they didn't have bugs, then they'd be algorithms.

Working...