3 ms·

It also contains no technical information about Disneyland or the Superbowl, despite their mentions. Technical information about any of the three would be equa

• cyphar 8y ago
  > intellectual property law Please stop perpetuating the use of this term. There is simply no such thing as "intellectual property" and nor are there any "intellectual property laws". The term is perpetuated by proponents of the "intellectual property lobby" which hope to confuse people over what precise laws are being changed, and what precise issues are in dispute. Not to mention that it is effectively a rewrite of history to pretend that copyright law is somehow a subset of "intellectual property law" -- the closest thing to what we would consider copyright law has existed since 1710 with the Statue of Anne in England. Laws and agreements similar to copyright (though in reality they were systems of censorship) existed even further back than that. Copyright law, patent law, and trademark law. They are separate laws, with separate rules and regulations, separate rights, and are therefore worthy of separate discussion. Not to mention that most people (understandably) have different views on these different topics -- your opinion on whether the trademark "Coca Cola" should be used by third-parties is probably different to your opinion on whether the text of Alice in Wonderland should be used by third parties, or whether the designs for penicillin should be used by third parties. The article in question has also (unfortunately) made the same mistake -- conflating patents and copyright law. I say "unfortunately" because I agree with the general point they're making -- that free software and patent-free standards are very important. But conflating the two doesn't make sense and just leads to confusion.
  • tofof 8y ago
    The term "intellectual property" was used in 1845 in Davoll et al. v. Brown, 173 years ago. The WIPO was created in 1967: 51 years ago. Whatever your personal objections are to a collective term for intangible human creations, claiming that "there is no such thing as intellectual property" is unhelpful to your cause, as that contention is simply absurd. It is beyond belief that a cabal of lobbyists has convinced practically every nation on earth [1] to collectively supervise a nonexistence. No, copyright/patent/trademark/trade secret/trade dress/design rights/moral rights/publicity rights/mask work rights/database rights/plant variety rights/geographical indications/etc(^) are not always detailed in separate laws. As early as 1916 the big three were grouped alike: see the Pan-American Convention's "Patents Trade Marks Copyright Status Report" and South Africa's "Patents, Designs, Trade Marks and Copyright Act" both in that year. Yes, some separation exists for some of these ideas in some jurisdictions - US law separates copyright from trademark, for example, but not from moral rights, which are directly incorporated into copyright law in Title 17 USC. And no, you can't argue that copyright and moral rights are indistinguishable: even after assigning away copyright, an author retains the moral rights (e.g. right to attribution). And of course, the US also groups trade marks and patents together under the purview of the USPTO, and collectively joins invention rights (utility patents), plant variety rights, and design rights (design patents) all under the umbrella of 'patent law'. Even where there is separation, that separation does not preclude the existence of a collective noun for the set. Nor does assignment into a collective set does imply a "rewrite of history". In fact, nearly all sets must be predated by at least one of their members; it would generally be nonsensical to create and name empty sets before any of their eventual members even exist. In any case, arguing the merit of individual discussion is nonsequitous -- the existence of a collective name in no way precludes it. Using your reasoning: "There simply is no such thing as the 'United States of America', nor are there any 'federal laws'. The term is perpetuated by proponents of the 'federal government'. It is a rewrite of history to pretend that that Virginia is somehow a subset of the USA -- the closest thing to what we would consider a state has existed since 1606 with the First Charter of Virginia in England. Native settlers of a similar area existed even further back than that.' (^) Man, that's awkward. If only there was a term to denote that set that I just needed to name. 1: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/a/a3/WIPO_members_2012.png https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/a/a3/WIPO_members_...