Month: October 2020


In the information society, good ideas are worth real money. But how can you protect them?

The ownership of “personal intellectual creations” is automatically protected. However, you cannot register a business idea as a patent or trademark. Even copyright cannot be asserted on an idea.

A single, seemingly trivial idea can be more valuable than the results of years of research and development. Many creative entrepreneurs guard the business ideas they have gained from practice like the apple of their eye. For fear of being “robbed” by ambitious imitators or even the overwhelming competition, they sometimes prefer to let their flashes of inspiration gather dust in the desk drawer than to look at concrete possibilities for realization.

Ideas are not protected!

First of all, that’s understandable. Theft of ideas is indeed common – and in the vast majority of cases also completely legal.

Take a break, take a short quiz. Promise, this is fun! Check this out – https://scuffedentertainment.com/harry-potter-house-quiz/

Because, contrary to what is often assumed, there is no copyright on pure ideas. Only the works based on them, such as books, melodies, or computer programs, are protected by the Copyright Act.

Suppose you have the groundbreaking idea of offering “grave maintenance via the Internet”. Then, for example, the catchy formulations and the conceptual structure of an essay on this topic would be protected in the central organ of florists. But not the content: Competitors who, inspired by the article (or an overheard conversation in the restaurant) take up the suggestion and successfully implement it, would not have to fear any legal problems.

The patent law leaves you similarly defenseless. Patents are only granted for (especially technical) inventions that can be used commercially. “Plans, rules, and procedures for […] business activities”, on the other hand, are expressly not “inventions” within the meaning of the Patent Act! Advertising ideas are also not protected by copyright. Even the unusual concept of an advertising campaign is not protected as such, as the Cologne Higher Regional Court ruled a few years ago.

In the case of fictitious “grave maintenance via the Internet”, innovative technical special devices or processes could at best be patentable with which remote-controlled sowing and weeding are possible and which are more than mere adaptations of already existing tele-technologies.

In turn, you could only expect protection from the trademark law for word, image, or audio signs under which you operate or want to operate your “grave maintenance via the Internet” service.

Finally, in the Criminal Code, there is a prohibition on the ” violation of private secrets ” and the ” exploitation of foreign secrets “. However, these relate mainly to public officials and special professional groups such as doctors, lawyers, or experts. Barriers against industrial espionage are provided by the general protection of letters, post or telecommunications secrecy, against data spying, or of business premises against break-ins.


In decades since Columbine, video games have obtained lots of the blame for mass shootings. The proof hasn’t supported this decision, and researchers are now just surer that media do not result in violence or aggression. But the notion persists. Only hours after a dreadful shooting such as the one that left 22 people dead in El Paso, Texas, on Saturday somebody will blame video games. To learn more about games, check out osrs accounts for sale.

Changes in Games

In the previous two decades, something has shifted. Games have changed from a wide cultural enemy a magical moderate that all kinds of people could hold accountable for social disgrace into some political instrument. Video-game violence was a bipartisan worry. Now it is a mostly Republican talking point, deployed for strategic political advantage to good effect.

Before the 2000s, a study on the effects of video-game violence on participants amounted to a few dozen research, shirts, quotes Christopher J. Ferguson, a Stetson University psychologist whose job disproves causal relations between video games and violent actions. At that moment, the violent video games selected for the study were much more basic than the current games. They included titles like Zaxxon and Pac-Man computer and arcade games which hardly represented anything let alone violent acts and the experiments were as basic as the images. Normally, researchers would encourage areas to perform a violent game like Centipede and compare their post-play aggression with that of a management group. Others asked exactly the very same questions through surveys.

All these studies were modeled after the previous study into if gory television shows may be connected to increases in violent crime. Initially, these studies have been equivocal, according to Ferguson. But that changed from the 1970s. Maybe because the real murder speed was climbing, informative articles on the topic began shifting from inconclusive to completely sure television caused violence even if only by way of a correlation with aggression.

As subjects of research, video games complicate things. They are not recorded on film, such as TV, so the definition of violence at a match has at all times remained subjective: Why is eating a Pac-Man monster brutal? What about shooting a dot for an insect stomach in Centipede? Ferguson states the outcomes of ancient video-game research were all around the area. Some discovered effects; others did not. However, he explained, folks were truthful: Researchers acknowledged the limits of their research and the inconclusiveness of the outcomes.

From the 1990s, the wave had turned. Computer images, though still comparatively straightforward, were getting more realistic. The sector also started targeting the now-older children who’d made the Atari and Nintendo productions of the previous decade. Soon enough, worries about violent video games also reached Washington. Back in 1993 and 1994, Senators Joe Lieberman and Herb Kohl both Democrats convened hearings about violent games and their potential consequences on kids. The interest was sparked mostly by Mortal Kombat, a fighting game with gruesome and realistic details, such as spurting blood and decapitation. In the wake of the hearings, Lieberman introduced legislation to make a score commission for matches; rather, an independent group, the Entertainment Software Rating Board, was created, the matches equal of the Motion Picture Association of America.

Then, in 1999, Dylan Klebold and Eric Harris killed 13 people and wounded 20 more at Columbine High School in Colorado. Throughout the analysis, it became evident that both had enjoyed and played Doom, the 1993 match that invented the first-person-shooter genre. Klebold and Harris appeared to have utilized it as a strategic instrument, producing maps to plan their assault. The exceptional shock of this assault may have hastened interest from behavioral scientists.

Games also became quickly more mature in their subjects and viewers. Grand Theft Auto added misogyny and criminality beneath the violence. Doom’s progeny, for example, Counter-Strike and Call of Duty, additional individual enemies, and military topics. Video games had incited ethical loopholes for decades through this season from worries about driving stick figures at 1976’s Death Race into the lurid attraction of this movie arcade from 1982 into the gore in Mortal Kombat at 1993. Within the neighborhood that played with them, the changes appeared evolutionary as well as the gamers had grown old, aside from. But on the outside, one of those who did not know video games, the early 2000s represented a definitive change toward ethical depravity.