Maybe the CEO's of Replicators, Inc., pay royalties....
I'm referring to the fact that, thanks to stupid health standards, the recipe for the cookies has recently CHANGED!!!
Would a given recipe be available for pattern replication, or would it be considered the intellectual property of its originator and thus only be given to those individuals the originator of the recipe authorizes?
Would a given recipe be available for pattern replication, or would it be considered the intellectual property of its originator and thus only be given to those individuals the originator of the recipe authorizes?
Hmm... What possible reason could the originator have for limiting the distribution of his recipe? Why should the law defend his IP rights? Why would this be the "right" thing to do?
In the enlightened 24th century, man has evolved past the need for monetary needs. Now they create for the joy of creation. Having one's name attached to the recipe, as creator, would be compensation enough.Hmm... What possible reason could the originator have for limiting the distribution of his recipe? Why should the law defend his IP rights? Why would this be the "right" thing to do?Would a given recipe be available for pattern replication, or would it be considered the intellectual property of its originator and thus only be given to those individuals the originator of the recipe authorizes?
Simple: Why should he invest his time and energy into creating a new recipe if he doesn't get control over the recipe's distribution? Why should he create something if he doesn't get to retain ownership?
In the enlightened 24th century, man has evolved past the need for monetary needs.Hmm... What possible reason could the originator have for limiting the distribution of his recipe? Why should the law defend his IP rights? Why would this be the "right" thing to do?
Simple: Why should he invest his time and energy into creating a new recipe if he doesn't get control over the recipe's distribution? Why should he create something if he doesn't get to retain ownership?
I'm referring to the fact that, thanks to stupid health standards, the recipe for the cookies has recently CHANGED!!!
The reason Nabisco has done so is because trans fat is bad for you, and there's a general drive to get them out of food. As well, there are are commercials about how pop causes you to have a bad liver just like booze does, and one by The Heart & Stroke Foundation of Ontario (where I live) equating the the Slinky-like device in a vending machine with the kind of device that takes out the fat from your arteries, as seen in this PSA now on local TV in Ontario:
By the future, I think replicators will have made those above-mentioned risks a thing of the past, but also time will have got rid of things like chips and Oreo cookies.
Perhaps if you had read and quoted my response in its entirety, you would have the answer to your question.In the enlightened 24th century, man has evolved past the need for monetary needs.Simple: Why should he invest his time and energy into creating a new recipe if he doesn't get control over the recipe's distribution? Why should he create something if he doesn't get to retain ownership?
I didn't even say he'd have monetary needs.
What I said was, why should he invest his time and energy in creating something if he doesn't get to control it afterwards?
Why should I create something if it's not going to be mine?
In the enlightened 24th century, man has evolved past the need for monetary needs. Now they create for the joy of creation. Having one's name attached to the recipe, as creator, would be compensation enough.
Why should I create something if it's not going to be mine?
Right. And monkeys might fly out of my butt.In the enlightened 24th century, man has evolved past the need for monetary needs. Now they create for the joy of creation. Having one's name attached to the recipe, as creator, would be compensation enough.
A "general drive"? Not in the United States, except among the nanny regulators and the food police.I'm referring to the fact that, thanks to stupid health standards, the recipe for the cookies has recently CHANGED!!!
The reason Nabisco has done so is because trans fat is bad for you, and there's a general drive to get them out of food.
I guess it depends on the IP law and the DRM regime of the future. Digital technology--in particular large storage devices and high-bandwidth internet connections--have made copying digital media much, much easier than it was 20 years ago. This has prompted some people to take another look at intellectual property law and methods of distribution. We now have to deal with encrypted media, authorization servers, subscription services, et cetera that did not exist before.
Ubiquitous scanning and replicating technology would have the same effect on physical property. If I can scan a McChicken and have a McChicken any time I want, I have no reason to ever go to McDonald's again. If I can share my McChicken pattern over the internet, no one anywhere in the universe will ever need to go to McDonald's again.
McDonald's can react to this in one of two ways. They can use their corporate clout to force replicator manufacturers to install lockouts that prevent the replication of certain items (anything from the McMenu, anything containing 11 herbs and spices, etc.), or they can go out of business overnight. Unless Mickey D's clout extends to every replicator manufacturer in the galaxy, the former option is very improbable.
In the enlightened 24th century, man has evolved past the need for monetary needs.Simple: Why should he invest his time and energy into creating a new recipe if he doesn't get control over the recipe's distribution? Why should he create something if he doesn't get to retain ownership?
I didn't even say he'd have monetary needs.
What I said was, why should he invest his time and energy in creating something if he doesn't get to control it afterwards?
Why should I create something if it's not going to be mine?
In the enlightened 24th century, man has evolved past the need for monetary needs.
I didn't even say he'd have monetary needs.
What I said was, why should he invest his time and energy in creating something if he doesn't get to control it afterwards?
Why should I create something if it's not going to be mine?
What controls would he want? From the sound of it seems like recognition for having created the 'pattern' or exemplar that the pattern is made from?
In the enlightened 24th century, man has evolved past the need for monetary needs. Now they create for the joy of creation. Having one's name attached to the recipe, as creator, would be compensation enough.Simple: Why should he invest his time and energy into creating a new recipe if he doesn't get control over the recipe's distribution? Why should he create something if he doesn't get to retain ownership?
Given the medical science of the 24th century, you can most likely eat and drink just about anything that you can hold down. Bad cholesterol, transfats, breaded, deep fry, sodium rich, empty calories, a dash of MSG, hydrogenated oil, white flour and nitrates.I'm referring to the fact that, thanks to stupid health standards, the recipe for the cookies has recently CHANGED!!!
The reason Nabisco has done so is because trans fat is bad for you, and there's a general drive to get them out of food. As well, there are are commercials about how pop causes you to have a bad liver just like booze does, and one by The Heart & Stroke Foundation of Ontario (where I live) equating the the Slinky-like device in a vending machine with the kind of device that takes out the fat from your arteries, as seen in this PSA now on local TV in Ontario. By the future, I think replicators will have made those above-mentioned risks a thing of the past, but also time will have got rid of things like chips and Oreo cookies.
If everything goes the way of Trek then there will be pizzas, just watch Voyager.
In the enlightened 24th century, man has evolved past the need for monetary needs.
I didn't even say he'd have monetary needs.
What I said was, why should he invest his time and energy in creating something if he doesn't get to control it afterwards?
Why should I create something if it's not going to be mine?
(Whistles) Sci...I'm pleasently suprised at you, for defending private property so well.![]()
We use essential cookies to make this site work, and optional cookies to enhance your experience.