If you had the opportunity to get ahead via science, would you take it?
Well, with inference based balance, you wouldn’t be wise not to.
In the case of the latest stage of creation at WXV, analysing almost two decades of work by scientific means, has created, the Second Edition (of WXV), which, objectively, is a great thing.
Whether an OTC (over the counter), trustless, or ethical breach, or cyber security issue, understanding the metrics of a global conspiracy can be enlightening.
Because of how casting works, and the realities of “acting” professional titles, founders have a tough challenge in store for themselves, if there are legal discrepancies in order, or if they are in a remote work situation, which has been commonplace, recently for many businesses in the medium term.
This is a big reason why movies about finance get made, so that an audience can extrapolate what the metrics really are, that financiers need to know about, cinematically.
After going on decades of being forked (just like anyone else), WXV and its Remerger° have been reanalysed, and is being Unforked™.
This means that all unauthorised activities involving acquisitions of intellectual properties, globally, are now returning their value, back into WXV, over time.
As WXV M&A activity picks up steam, Unforked™, presents itself as being an exciting new strategic future pathway on the horizon.
There is a limit to what intellectual property law, can cover. Eventually the truth is already defined.
With Tyner Group Legal Engine°, the truthfulness and truthiness of IP law isn’t going to be altered that much further, for the most part, as this is based off the existing Tyner Group legal framework.
What does morph further, in the future, are the WXV Map Law Imprints, which each serve very different specialisations of law, via intellectual property, and location. What this means is the WXV x Tyner Group legalese framework is greater than the sum of its parts, as the WXV legal environment is broader and more open, while further IP law specialised forms° are added and refined.
Essentially wrapping isn’t illegal, if this is done with proprietary information. However, if someone else’s data is wrapped, and the consumer doesn’t know, then there could be an issue.
On occasion, you might see, an entire “geofenced” website, wrapped, so that the visitor has no idea, that they’re actually visiting a competitor’s domain, and not viewing the content that they are aiming at signing up to.
While a controversial topic, when the wrapping is of a smaller scale, and the intangible data is all privately owned, then there isn’t really an ethics issue. The primary rationale behind bringing wrapping up as a topic, is that when there are more than one illegal domain geofenced wrapping issues on a singular entity, the fraud usually takes care of itself and the violation goes away.