[Upd-discuss] Did You Say "Intellectual Property"? It's,a Seductive Mirage by Richard M. Stallman

[Dean Anderson]

On Tue, 29 Mar 2005, James Love wrote:

> It is not true that these are all patent or copyright issues.  

I didn't say that _all_ of them were patent or copyright issues. I said
that nearly all are.  Lets get past the nits.

> Each regime is quite different legally, and has its own problems.  
> Jamie

That's _exactly_ why you shouldn't call them "intellectual property".

For example, you listed Trade Secrets, which are not copyrights, patents,
nor trademarks.  Trade secrets are neither rights, nor property.  but are
value business information.  Typically, trade secrets are the subject of
non-disclosure agreements. Expropriation of trade secrets generally 
involves a break-and-enter (ie, break into cocacola's vault and steal the 
secret formula) or a violation of a NDA.  But if one can independently 
invent the same, or reverse engineer the same, there is no protection.  
This is vastly different from copyrights, patents and trademarks. So if 
you intend to talk about trade secrets, you ought to say so.

		--Dean

> Dean Anderson wrote:
> > But James, your unstructured list of things actually has structure that 
> > you are missing: Nearly all of the things you list are copyright and 
> > patent issues, with the exception of trade secrets.
> > 
> > One would not discuss the harms of patents at meeting on broadcasting
> > rights (which are copyrights).  But if you call it an "intellectual 
> > property" meeting, one might get that impression.
> > 
> > You seem to be making my point for me: "Intellectual property" is more 
> > confusing.
> > 
> > 		--Dean
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > On Sun, 27 Mar 2005, James Love wrote:
> > 
> > 
> >>Dean Anderson wrote:
> >>
> >>>We have explained that we object to "intellectual property" as a term.   
> >>>We've outlined specific and concrete harms.
> >>>
> >>>What hasn't been explained is why people cannot use "copyrights, patents,
> >>>and trademarks" as a replacement.  Is there a substantial reason that the
> >>>phrase "copyrights, patents, and trademarks" cannot be used as a term or
> >>>each individually as appropriate?
> >>
> >>     One reason is that there are a zillion instruments that are not 
> >>copyrights, patents or trademarks, such as, for example:
> >>
> >>    EU style database protection (adopted by many countries such as 
> >>Korea or Mexico via bilateral trade agreements)
> >>
> >>    Broadcasting rights (see Rome Convention and new WIPO Treaty)
> >>
> >>    Trade Secrets
> >>
> >>    Hatch/Waxman EU sytle Exclusive Rights in Health Registration data, 
> >>being rammed down the throat of dozens of developing countries via 
> >>bilateral trade agreements
> >>
> >>    Orphan Drug/Peadiatric market exclusivity for medicines
> >>
> >>    Sui generis protection for semi conductors
> >>
> >>    Plant breeder rights
> >>
> >>    Various regimes to protect traditional knowledge or genetic resources
> >>
> >>Jamie
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>>I rather get the feeling that people have "intellectual property" loaded 
> >>>in as a macro on their word processor, and just don't want to change it 
> >>>for laziness.
> >>>
> >>>		--Dean
> >>>
> >>
> >>
> > 
> 
> 

-- 
Av8 Internet   Prepared to pay a premium for better service?
www.av8.net         faster, more reliable, better service
617 344 9000