Kind of, but the head of department is morally and ethically obligated to make note of the subordinate who made the actual discovery or breakthrough and usually shares the prize at least if it doesn’t go directly to the discovery maker alone. This is especially true when the head misinterprets and discards the data and denies any discovery was made until the discoverer, on their own, forms a hypothesis, tests it, and repeats it, all without the head of department’s involvement.

In this case, one person made the discovery and the department head dismissed it, then that subordinate on her own continued her investigation and formed her own hypothesis, tested and verified it, and only then her department head became convinced, then took ALL credit for the discovery with no mention of her. That is NOT how scientific teams work.

This wasn’t just her discovery, she figured out what it was too…her hypothesis and her testing, her repeating the discovery, almost certainly her writing it up. If she were a man, she definitely would have gotten credit for both the discovery and the hypothesis, and for confirming her hypothesis. She might not have been given the “prize” individually, but she would have definitely gotten the credit and shared in the accolades. (I think a male in the same position would have shared the prize at a minimum, and had the department head claimed credit as they did here, would have publicly disgraced the department head by proving they not only had nothing to do with the discovery, they had dismissed it when shown and added nothing at all to the hypothesis or testing it, and they would have been drummed out of the scientific community for plagiarism and theft of intellectual property).

When he dismissed her findings completely, he removed himself from the discovery and she became group leader of her own separate project. She deserves both prizes, both monetary awards, a public apology from the man who stole her work without giving her credit, and a serious civil judgement against him for any bonus, advancement, raise, accolades, or paid engagements he received based on his lie that he discovered pulsars. That’s her money that he stole.

Hm. Maybe. Putting aside for the moment that the original film was nearly perfect and needed no sequels or reboots, Jason Reitman probably will have more respect for the series and won't let it become the soulless Hollywood Reboot-O-Tron disaster that the 2016 version was.

Take the basic concept, do something new with it, and it might turn out to be a good film. Can't say I'm excited or anything though. The Ghostbusters intellectual property by itself isn't anything special.

Sometimes I'm very glad that I live in a country that generally doesn't give a f@$% about US Copyright and Intellectual Property.

Since that is the case, and because I also happen to derive some schadenfreude-esque pleasure from the "Streisand effect", I have decided to download and seed for the foreseeable future the 6GB worth of files for the last version of Stage 9 before the shutdown, including Windows, Linux, and VR variants.

Anyone interested in following suit can use this magnet link, although there is potential for ISP strikes/warnings if you live in the US or other places where they have a less laissez-faire approach to these things than in Thailand (where I live).

Fair use needs protection. When that fails, at least one can assist with unfettered use, even if the powers that be claim that use is illegitimate.

Read this rebuttle on a public forum on an ad from Purple when someone brought this up:

Purple:
Hi Caitlin, we didn't sue because we has questions, as he asserted. We filed action against Honest Mattress Reviews (HMR), Ryan Monahan & GhostBed for violating the law by spreading false and misleading statements online, including specific statements that GhostBed — a primary competitor of Purple — had previously agreed to remove from its website and various social media platforms. Now, however, those and other false and misleading statements are being made on HMR and Momahan's newly-created mattress-industry-related blog. We have reason to believe Monahan & GhostBed are "in bed together" — some of the connections we've found are here: https://onpurple.com/blog/connections-ryan-monahan-ghostbed.

HMR’s, Monahan’s and GhostBed’s campaign against Purple includes numerous false and misleading statements about Purple and its products and services, including false claims about the safety of Purple’s mattresses, the assumed lack of adequate safety testing for Purple’s products, and Purple’s alleged deception of its customers regarding safety. In fact, many of the statements go so far as to imply that Purple’s mattresses are dangerous and can lead to serious diseases. These statements have been proven to be false and unfounded, and yet, they continue to dishonestly proclaim that Purple's products are unsafe.

The suit is public record and why we sued is clearly spelled out in it, but to clear up what seems to be insinuated — we didn’t sue because he gave us a bad review or because of his 4 safety questions (as he’s asserted). On the contrary, we encourage third-party reviews as an important part of the consumer research process. We are merely protecting our company and intellectual property against a dishonest ”reviewer” with connections to a competitor.

Since every time we discuss the lawsuit publicly evidence of the connection seems to disappear, this is all we can say at this time. Again, the suit is public record and you're welcome to review it yourself.

They were all low quality. Alas, proper english also equals proper english lawyers quashing their intellectual property, except for the translated clips.

I have also found this to be true with subtitled music videos in proper english. If someone puts a massive Spanish subtitle on the video, it survives the english censorship and video removal.

English videos in non english formats survive. They are the fittest and therefore your proper english, following this path, will also die out and morph into INGSOC as long as the abomination of intellectual property law scourages our world.

Monkey Island games were always wacky and difficult puzzles simply because it required you to think of objects in such ways as to break the fourth wall of the game itself. Guybrush and his infinite pocket space.

Also note, these are good games despite their frustrating bits. There were far more frustrations prior to the days where you are given dialog choices, when you were required to type in all of the dialog options using key words. Cough, cough, older Tex Murphy games and just about every text adventure from the dawn of home computers.

I loved those games, but many of them turned into puzzles that maybe one person in the family finally figured out after brute force trying thousands of combinations of objects with each other. I did that multiple times in the original Myst. I think there was one passcode that took close to 10,000 attempts. LOL!

Or how about games that had dead ends but didn't alert the player? Cough, cough Maniac Mansion. People could die, but as long as one person was left alive, the game never ended, even though only the bad endings are left. But it's not like modern games, some of the bad endings were themselves puzzles, and some deaths lead to a half good and half bad ending, like winning a lottery and then having a character abandon the plot altogether because he/she is rich and then THE END.

Those were the days. None of this FNAF shit -- which is really what deserves the infamy of terrible, convoluted puzzles...

Before video games became as massively popular as they are today, it wasn't always a requirement to make your game easily solved and you were not always provided with prompts for failure or success until many grueling hours, days, months, sometimes YEARS of random attempts. How many families bought a Rubik's Cube versus how many people solved it without cheating and learning the algorithms from another source?

Go back hundreds or thousands of years and it wasn't common for chess or go or xiangqi (the most popular game in the entire world TODAY) to come with rules at all, so only regions where national ruling boards were created will there be standardized rules; so, the truth, rules, patterns, and solves of games have traditionally been obfuscated and considered lifelong intellectual pursuits; and, it's only a recent, corporatized reimagining of games that has the requirement of providing your functional requirements and/or game rulings so as to maintain the value of its intellectual property. I mean, look at how Risk has evolved since the 1960s -- now there's a card that you can draw called a "Cease Fire" card which ends the game, making games much shorter and not epic at all. Easy to market, but old school players want the long stand offs -- I mean, if you're going to play Risk... TO THE BITTER END!

It's worth pointing out there is a flipside to this. Small companies with genuine inventions and patents on those inventions often don't have the financial wherewithal to take on large companies that infringe on their intellectual property as those large companies could drag the litigation on for years and bankrupt the patent holder.

Instead, some of these companies choose to sell of their patent (while retaining exclusive use rights) to a patent aggregator for an up front fee, who specialised in this kind of litigation and expects to make their money back at the end of court proceedings.

Disney just knows how to put intellectual property to work! That bitch is a hive mother. Little star wars and marvel babies forever.

My hope is that Storm and Elsa hook up. When they make love it creates an ice storm that covers the planet, creating an ice age -- and it turns out that the only thing that saves humanity from this ice age is global warming. And everyone loves republicans and celebrates their fore knowledge, which is actually wizard knowledge, of the ice apocalypse.

The reason we live in dystopian future... today... Excellent fan video released on the internet, stirs up a reinterest in a shitty old intellectual property, people who profit from this buzzes response? Take the video away from the masses. F U, aholes.

I just... I get it, but it doesn't feel good. It doesn't feel like the internet I voted for! lol

Oh, I'll watch this and Jurassic World, but i still wish for more original content and intellectual properties.

As long as no one from anything after Terminator 2 is involved, it'll probably be ok...

@ChaosEngine

I will venture that "socialization" of the means of production can remain separate from their "nationalization," and also their only possible compliance with non-aggression while contributing to free-market prosperity, comes -- if by "means of production" we mean, not the built factories, railroads, whatever, but the allowance of such building. That is, if we socialize "intellectual property."

As such, patents plain and simple legally restrict "the means of production" to those who own them. Socialism, when it comes to IP, does make sense. It makes no sense, however, when it comes to scarce goods.

In this regard, Wilhelm Reich's "Mass Psychology of Fascism" (PDF) is a good book to read on this subject as it goes a long way towards explaining the mass appeal of the state. He may focus too much on irrational drives, and remains stuck in untenable syndicalist ideas, but here we must distinguish thymological irrationality from praxeological "irrationality." Praxeologically, humans are always rational, never irrational.

For this, I think it'd be interesting to put Reich's theory next to "public choice" theory for a more complete picture, but then, we'd need to have an intelligent discourse rather than the name-calling and epithets I've come to expect.

While this may all seem rather academic, this discourse has many practical uses, like understanding the chances of reversing social trends towards statism, etc. since it seems to me that a Manichean system, with a mix of chaos and order dominating, and periodic tilts towards one end (chaos, nazism, communism) or the other (order, rationalism, anarchy), can serve social orders like a yin-yang with neither pole ever dominating totally or for long.

Seriously dude.. If you want to "debate" intellectual property, then you need to read this first. Otherwise, you can go debate someone else.

Copyright is out of date. Take your "intellectual property" and think for yourself.

To the best of my knowledge, and it's been a few years since I looked at IP* in any depth, QoS only really works where you can control the entire network, end to end. I don't believe there is any support for QoS in the underlying IP.

But yeah, as I said before, I'll be snowboarding in hell before I trust the ISPs with that kinda power.


* IP as in TCP/IP (internet protocol) not Intellectual Property

Please. Please. PLEASE be a viral for Portal 3 and/or Half Life 3 and/or Episode 3 and/or SOMETHING FROM THAT INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY!