<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Copyright Law and Your Creative Muse</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2009/06/10/copyright-law-and-your-creative-muse/id=4042/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2009/06/10/copyright-law-and-your-creative-muse/id=4042/</link>
	<description>Patents, Software Patents, Patent Applications &#38; Patent Law</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Thu, 09 Feb 2012 01:33:50 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: Tom</title>
		<link>http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2009/06/10/copyright-law-and-your-creative-muse/id=4042/#comment-5211</link>
		<dc:creator>Tom</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 11 Jun 2009 19:10:51 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.ipwatchdog.com/?p=4042#comment-5211</guid>
		<description>After the introduction of the IBM Personal Computer, there were thousands of interesting applications, large and small, written by IBM employees.  IBM&#039;s response to this was schizophrenic, to say the least.  On the one hand, IBM claimed had ownership interest in all of the applications, whether developed on company time or personal time.  On the other hand, if IBM had no interest in an application, the employee could not get permission to market it, even as freeware.  It took about ten years for that position to change,  and even then the change was inadequate.  When I took a buyout package in 1993, the IBM attorney I talked to about IP did not have a clue about the agreement I had signed, and I had to explain it to him.   I no longer work for IBM (or anyone, for that matter), but I hope that IBM has outgrown those overly legalistic shackles and realized that the lawyers work for IBM, not the other way round.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>After the introduction of the IBM Personal Computer, there were thousands of interesting applications, large and small, written by IBM employees.  IBM&#8217;s response to this was schizophrenic, to say the least.  On the one hand, IBM claimed had ownership interest in all of the applications, whether developed on company time or personal time.  On the other hand, if IBM had no interest in an application, the employee could not get permission to market it, even as freeware.  It took about ten years for that position to change,  and even then the change was inadequate.  When I took a buyout package in 1993, the IBM attorney I talked to about IP did not have a clue about the agreement I had signed, and I had to explain it to him.   I no longer work for IBM (or anyone, for that matter), but I hope that IBM has outgrown those overly legalistic shackles and realized that the lawyers work for IBM, not the other way round.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: JamesD</title>
		<link>http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2009/06/10/copyright-law-and-your-creative-muse/id=4042/#comment-5191</link>
		<dc:creator>JamesD</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 11 Jun 2009 12:58:38 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.ipwatchdog.com/?p=4042#comment-5191</guid>
		<description>Thanks for the useful info. It&#039;s so interesting</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Thanks for the useful info. It&#8217;s so interesting</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

