Re: Intellectual property ownership

"kangarooistan" <kangarooistan@islamonline.net> wrote in message 
news:df60a34d-cfba-4993-b522-fb59939d6eca@y21g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
> About 150 years ago it was observed amongst a few friends that there
> was likely something causing the increased height / bone and muscle
> growth seen in some big red kangaroos and also in some camels and some
> people who ate them or lived with them , that was not noticed in other
> countries , raising the question , WHY , what was the reason for the
> differences observed in some central Australian peoples and Animals
> size and muscle growth , was it dietary , genetic , water , ?????
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_Kangaroo
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australian_feral_camel
>
> Pictures of Australian Aboriginal peoples
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indigenous_Australians
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Bathurst_Island_men.jpg
>
> Note , Man on left cropped from image , why ??
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/olmedia/1525000/images/_1525825_chainsbbc300.jpg
>
>
> This observation was confirmed over many generations since and many
> people added their observations over the years to help identify what
> was the causes
>
> Vast amounts of knowledge flowed from the Australian Aboriginal
> peoples and when shared with peoples
>
> From Egypt , Iran , Afghanistan  ,Pakistan , India , china and
> Japan ,  nobody ever claimed ownership or was asked for money to fund
> research
> http://www.southaustralianhistory.com.au/brachina.htm
>
> The white Anglo peoples where simply not ever interested in any way ,
> which was understandable  as they really were  completely in unknown
> territory on many related issues , they already thought they knew all
> the answers to all the really important questions of concern to them,
>
> Recent research indicates the mystery has been solved and there may
> possibly be some commercial value in the findings
>
> Which raises a question as to who owns the intellectual property
> rights , to this information , all done in Australia , but using
> knowledge from many places over 150 years ,  mostly conducted by a few
> interested researchers at any time  , if it goes commercial , will
> former contributers[ mostly dead ] , or their descendants have a legal
> right to ownership , assuming it was found to be of considerable
> value  , yes a remote possibility but still , lets just assume it for
> this exersize
>
> Many people will have evidence of their ancestors inputs over the
> years , although very very few alive today will even know of the
> research , until it goes public they probably will have never even
> heard of it ever , although there would be documented evidence that
> many have indeed contributed, mostly over 50 years ago or more
>
> Its possible the research could be commercialized and be worth a
> considerable amount , possibly bringing out lost interest , mostly
> interest that died 50 years ago when most researchers died of old age
> and their children mostly never took any interest
>
> I can use patents to protect from outsiders misuse of this IP , and
> this may exclude all other claimants , if done correctly  and thats
> beyond me so lets assume thats best left to the  IP lawyers and
> experts, Does the IP laws sweep away all  other laims ??
>
> my question is ,
>
> what claim may a living person make against research done by their
> relatives who died over 50 years ago and has contributed nothing
> since , even though their relatives should have their work/ efforts
> recognized , and may morally be entitled to some benefit
>
> where does the law / legal claim  stand  internationally , on this
> matter?
>
> Any thoughts ?

The law sweeps away all claims the descendants.  Here, in general, is the
way IP law works:

General rule: Everyone is free to use, in any way desired, any idea,
knowledge, research, information, etc. ("Knowledge" herein) unless the
Knowledge is protected by the law of Patents, Copyrights, Trademarks, Trade
Secrets or Contracts.

Exceptions:
Patents: not applicable.  Inventions may be patented, research and Knowledge
may not be.  Inventions may be patented by the inventor, not the descendants
of the inventor.

Copyrights: not applicable.  Copyrights protect the physical embodiment of
creative works, such as books, recordings, movies, software and do not
protect the ideas or Knowledge expressed therein.  So if you write a book
about the kangaroo growth phenomenon, you will have a copyright on the book
but no right to prevent others from using the information in it, or even
writing their own books, provided they don't copy yours.  The fact that the
author is related to the original discoverer is not legally relevant.

Trademarks: not applicable.
Trade Secrets: not applicable.
Contracts: not applicable.
Rights of descendants of owners of registered patents and copyrights: not
applicable.

This answer must not be relied on as legal advice for the reasons posted
here:  http://mcgyverdisclaimer.blogspot.com .  And I am not your attorney.

I deleted all newsgroups except US.Legal because this answer could not be 
posted with all of those newsgroups.