Is Free Science really just intellectual theft?

  • Thread starter Thread starter kevinmorais
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Science watch
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the concept of "Free Science" and its implications for intellectual property and ethics in scientific research. Participants explore the idea of whether un-published ideas can be considered intellectual theft and the moral responsibilities associated with sharing scientific knowledge.

Discussion Character

  • Debate/contested
  • Conceptual clarification
  • Meta-discussion

Main Points Raised

  • One participant argues that "Free Science" leads to intellectual theft if ideas are not published, suggesting that sharing un-published ideas allows others to claim them as their own.
  • Another participant questions the capitalization of "Free Science," implying it may not refer to a recognized concept or organization.
  • Concerns are raised about the nature of intellectual property, with some participants noting that not all scientific ideas qualify as such unless published.
  • There is a discussion about copyrighting numbers and algorithms, with differing views on what can be copyrighted or patented.
  • Some participants express confusion over the original post's language and capitalization choices, leading to further meta-discussion about clarity and interpretation.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the implications of "Free Science," with no consensus on whether it constitutes theft or not. There is also disagreement regarding the nature of intellectual property and copyright issues, contributing to an unresolved discussion.

Contextual Notes

Limitations in understanding arise from the original post's language and capitalization, which some participants find confusing. The discussion also reflects varying interpretations of intellectual property laws and ethical considerations in science.

kevinmorais
Messages
7
Reaction score
2
When I was studying Physics we had a contest where we had to build a Cart that would travel the Furthest Distance. I Figured a Dry Ice Puck would do the trick as everyone was putting wheels on their design. So I asked my Instructor if I could use a Dry Ice Puck, He told the Class about the Dry Ice Puck...teaching me about what is known as Free Science. If Your Idea isn't Published anyone can just put their name on it...he taught me a valuable lesson. Free Science is Theft in my eyes but Science is a Business and it is what it is. Publish before you share. It is called Free Science and like I said it is Intillectual Theft. Legally it is ok but Morally it is Wrong to steal someone else's findings. He was a Great teacher...
 
Physics news on Phys.org
You write Free Science with capital letters. Is that the name of some organization that you believe steals intellectual property?

Btw, not all scientific ideas qualify as intellectual property, and if you haven’t published then there is no way to cite you so it isn’t even plagiarism.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: symbolipoint
kevinmorais said:
I asked my Instructor if I could use a Dry Ice Puck, He told the Class about the Dry Ice Puck...teaching me about what is known as Free Science. If Your Idea isn't Published anyone can just put their name on it..
And when it came time to grade the projects... do you seriously imagine that he didn't know who had come up with the idea on their own and who learned about it in class?
 
You can hardly copyright numbers, or even commonly known algorithms. And RSA has (or had, I don't know if it's still protected) a copyright!
 
Dale said:
You write Free Science with capital letters

He wrote pretty much everything with capital letters. I don't think this is significant.
 
Vanadium 50 said:
He wrote pretty much everything with capital letters. I don't think this is significant.
Yes, it is odd and confusing to me. I assume that Dry Ice Puck is a small disk of frozen CO2 rather than a brand name of hockey equipment, but I have never heard of “free science” in another context so capitalizing it feels particularly strange.

I think that German capitalizes all nouns, but if he/she is a native German speaker then why are “theft”, “great”, and “morally” capitalized?
 
Dale said:
I think that German capitalizes all nouns, but if he/she is a native German speaker then why are “theft”, “great”, and “morally” capitalized?
Theft is a noun. However, Intillectual and Morally are not.

And the noun rule is easier than to decide when American, English etc. are written with caps or not.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: Dale
fresh_42 said:
You can hardly copyright numbers, or even commonly known algorithms. And RSA has (or had, I don't know if it's still protected) a copyright!
You can copyright some numbers in some contexts; every digital copyrighted work is expressible as a number. While algorithms as abstractions cannot be copyrighted, they can in many cases be patented, and their implementations or descriptions can be copyrighted.
 
Dale said:
but if he/she is a native German speaker then why are “theft”, “great”, and “morally” capitalized?

Or Dry? Or Furthest?

Like you, I am still strugglinmg to figure out what the OP is saying.
 
  • #10
sysprog said:
You can copyright some numbers in some contexts; every digital copyrighted work is expressible as a number.
I'm not sure what you mean. Do you mean a digitized song can be expressed as a series of concatenated numbers, and the result copyrighted as a number? In that case a 15 bit rendition would not violate the 16 bit resolution copyright.
 
  • #11
Since the question is so confusing we will close it for now.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 23 ·
Replies
23
Views
3K
  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
3K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
3K
Replies
2
Views
3K
Replies
17
Views
7K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
5K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
5K
Replies
10
Views
5K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
23K