[Upd-discuss] Jewish Rock-n-Roll Hall of Fame sued over trademark violation

[Jason Tanenbaum]

I think it's troubling to say that there is a right or wrong focus of 
discussion.  There are clearly multiple levels of discussion and 
abstraction - a reality of many political debates.  They need not be 
mutually exclusive.  Who is to say that the common free speech concerns 
that run through the different areas of law are less important than the 
specific policy issues of each?  Doesn't context matter?  We on this 
list are likely not distracted from the more concrete debates by a 
discussion of some abstract ideas.  The less educated public, on the 
other hand, might indeed be misled.  It's good to be aware of the 
consequences of our use of language, but some times flawed terms are all 
we have to use.

Richard Stallman wrote:

>      Specifically, I'm referring to the 
>    idea that control of intangible products (whether they be songs, ideas 
>    for inventions, or brand designations) involve the control of 
>    information and ideas.
>
>This statement isn't *false*, but it focuses attention on the wrong
>level.  The problem of confusion in the term "intellectual property"
>is that it encourages people to focus too much attention at this level
>of abstraction, and thus disregard the specifics of copyright law, of
>patent law, and of trademark law.
>
>  
>

-- 

Jason Tanenbaum, J.D.
Ph.D. Candidate, Department of Political Science
University of Oregon
jtanen@uoregon.edu