Talk:Intellectual rights to magic methods: Difference between revisions

Revision as of 21:36, 25 November 2005

Revision as of 14:29, 21 January 2006

Line 3:

Shouldn't this page discuss patents, which specifically can describe processes, such as industrial processes and computer algorithms? It's not clear to me at all whether patent law applies to magic methods, but it seems it might. [[User:Dcoetzee|Deco]] 05:09, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

:Seems someone did update it. Looks good, thanks. [[User:Deco|Deco]] 21:36, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

== Industry standard and praxis ==

This subject is a bit tricky, because there '''are''' intellectual rights to magic methods - it's just that those rights are not yet defined by law (just as it once was for a number of other fields).

So when it comes to revelation of magic methods, I suggest that Wikipedia adapt and comply to the standards that are used by the respected publishers of magic technical litterature around the world. Those are the people who on a regular basis has to decide what is ethical to publish, and have evolved a set of rules that are quite clear and simple to follow.

I'm a publisher of magic litterature myself, and I can contact "Hermetic Press", "L & L Publishing", "Kaufman and Company" and then put together a guideline for the Wikipedia that are in agreement with the industry standard. If this is interesting, where should I post it? --[[User:TStone|TStone]] 14:29, 21 January 2006 (UTC)