Interoperability for games is fundamentally flawed reasoning
Posted Aug 24, 2005 22:07 UTC (Wed) by corbet
In reply to: Interoperability for games is fundamentally flawed reasoning
Parent article: On the defense of piracy enablers
I don't blame you for probably having had fewer conceptual debates on statutory law and case law than I've had over the last 16 months in the European software patent debate.
Then I don't blame you for being a little condescending, but I may not be quite as ignorant as you seem to think.
I'll give you an example: When the two professional soccer clubs in Munich wanted to modernize the Olympic Stadium with its world-famous tent-like design, the architect vetoed some (not all) of their plans for conceptual reasons. It's an inalienable originator's right. They had to build a whole new stadium in the end. That's the way it is.
That's the way it is in Germany. But bnetd is a U.S. case, and the U.S. does not give "artists" the same sort of lingering rights over their creations. Your stadium example could not happen here in the absense of explicit, contractual rights given to the architect. It is, thus, not an appropriate precedent for the bnetd case.
to post comments)