Talk:Integrated circuit layout design protection
 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
| |||||||||||
"Like most of the other forms of intellectual propertiy, IC layout designs are creations of the human mind. They are usually the result of an enormous investment, both in terms of the time of highly qualified experts, and financially."
I think the tone is unfair. For example, Richard Stallman wouldn't describe it that way. (Since he regards intellectual property as a loaded term). Could this be worded in a neutral tone? --187.40.190.66 (talk) 19:26, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
- In my opinion, the entire paragraph is POV; it reads like a statement carefully put together by 'IP' supporters to argue the case. I'd suggest just nuking the whole paragraph since it adds nothing to the article. I've held back from doing so immediately because of the {{POV}} tag; are there any objections? PT 09:41, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
- I disagree. Is there something incorrect on this statement? Isn't it usually a result of an enormous investment? It should be removed only if it's untrue. Rudoleska (talk) 18:07, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
- It is POV not because it is untrue but because it's weasel wording: "Like most of the other forms of IP" is a statement about IP, not about IC layout protections; that they are "creations of the human mind" is of course true, but irrelevant if you don't believe that all creations of the human mind should be protected (which they aren't, by the way); similarly, no one can argue that most IC layouts are the result of an enormous investment but that has also nothing to do with intellectual property, it merely states that a lot of people has put a lot of effort into it. Contrast this with a mathematical algorithm: it is also the creation of a human mind requiring a lot of resources and effort, but is not patentable or protectable (in most of the world). Remove the paragraph, it doesn't add anything to the article but represents pro-IP bias. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.112.154.152 (talk) 12:30, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
- ✓ Donesies. --Damian Yerrick (talk | stalk) 01:58, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
- It is POV not because it is untrue but because it's weasel wording: "Like most of the other forms of IP" is a statement about IP, not about IC layout protections; that they are "creations of the human mind" is of course true, but irrelevant if you don't believe that all creations of the human mind should be protected (which they aren't, by the way); similarly, no one can argue that most IC layouts are the result of an enormous investment but that has also nothing to do with intellectual property, it merely states that a lot of people has put a lot of effort into it. Contrast this with a mathematical algorithm: it is also the creation of a human mind requiring a lot of resources and effort, but is not patentable or protectable (in most of the world). Remove the paragraph, it doesn't add anything to the article but represents pro-IP bias. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.112.154.152 (talk) 12:30, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
- I disagree. Is there something incorrect on this statement? Isn't it usually a result of an enormous investment? It should be removed only if it's untrue. Rudoleska (talk) 18:07, 28 August 2011 (UTC)