Monitored Alarm Systems

Many of you have submitted this BoingBoing post which states that WIPO, Francis Gurry, Director said that the World Wide Web would have been better if it had been patented. It was an interesting statement based on two things. First, a few months ago, had presented a scenario about what the Web looks like Tim Berners-Lee had patented. Second, WIPO, Francis Gurry, head in the past turned out to be much more thoughtful and realistic in terms of intellectual property - if the argument seems a bit unusual from what I had heard of before.

So I listened to the session, you can find the video at the top right of this page. Gurry comments are a bit stupid but

not

that the web would have been better if they were patented. Instead, it answers the question raised at the session on the importance of investment in basic research , and noted that CERN - Web was first developed time - might have been able to invest more in basic research if it had been able to receive a small portion of the product patent on the web. In this context, the meaning of comments a little more:

intellectual property is very flexible. For example, the World Wide Web has been patented, and I think this is a problem in itself, perhaps the amount of investment it has made or be able to enter the basic science is different. If I found a very flexible licensing model, which was the burden of innovation in the World Wide Web community shared by all users in a very fair and reasonable with a modest contribution to the world for this wonderful innovation would have allowed himself a huge investment in more basic research. And that's the kind of flexibility that is built into the system of intellectual property. This is not a rigid ...



course, there is the argument
web would have been better - just that it is possible that