|WikiProject Law||(Rated Start-class, Mid-importance)|
This definition is not correct. Cross-licensing means patents on each side are licensed to the other, but it does not preclude an exchange of money if the number or value of patents on the two sides are different, or for other reasons.
Further, the reference to Microsoft seems to be confused at least and wrong at worst. Patents which are licensed to a company may not generally be licensed by that company to a third party, unless the licensee is effectively acting as an agent for the patent owner, although anything is possible. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Capek (talk • contribs)
Further, the statement, "Some non-patent Intellectual property such as computer software can also be cross-licensed" should be eliminated or clarified. First, "software" is not a type of intellectual property; a copyright protecting computer software is intellectual property. Second, although the Supreme Court has yet to conclusively weigh in on the patentability of "software patents," it is established that an invention including software that produces a useful result is patentable. Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175 (1981). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Seamus80 (talk • contribs) 03:49, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
You are making a distinction without a difference. If a book is copyrighted, the book is the IP which is protected by the copyright. In a license agreement, limited use of the words and numbers and illustrations in the book are licensed, not the words and numbers in the copyright notice, although the agreement will require a copyright notice be included in licensed works. Likewise with computer programs and computer data, together termed software. If a copyrighted computer program is a type of IP and copyrighted computer data is a type of IP, then copyrighted software is a type of IP. Greensburger 06:10, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
I'm not convinced. Intellectual property refers to a type of property in ownership of a legal right (i.e. the right to exclude or right of first performance), not physical property. It is true that ownership in the case of copyright in software, or a literary work, for that matter, seems to merge with ownership of control of the software itself. However, a copyright ownership bears with it nothing more than a bundle of certain rights or privileges such as first publication, performance, etc.. The distinction is more visible in the case of patent law: your logic would hold that "if a product is patented, the product is the IP which is protected." However, there is no necessary relation between a patent and a product. In fact, one may own several patents directed to aspects of a product without the right to even manufacture the product. Nonetheless, one would have a property interest in the patents.
I am not so much concerned with the minor error in asserting that software is IP; the problem is that a reader would mistakenly believe that software is either only protectable under copyright or "non-patent" IP. The truth is that software is simply a creation the is potentially protectable by patent, trademark or copyright. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Seamus80 (talk • contribs) 17:21, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
I understand your point now. I rewrote the paragraph to avoid unintended implications. Greensburger 18:24, 8 November 2007 (UTC)