Talk:Intellectual rights to magic methods

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by TStone (talk | contribs) at 14:29, 21 January 2006 (Industry standard and praxis). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Latest comment: 19 years ago by TStone in topic Industry standard and praxis

Patents

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. Deco 05:09, 28 July 2005 (UTC)Reply

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

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? --TStone 14:29, 21 January 2006 (UTC)Reply