3 ms·
The term “intellectual property” is at best a catch-all to lump together disparate laws. Nonlawyers who hear one term applied to these various laws tend to assu
by teddyh 3y ago
The term “intellectual property” is at best a catch-all to lump together disparate laws. Nonlawyers who hear one term applied to these various laws tend to assume they are based on a common principle and function similarly.
Nothing could be further from the case. These laws originated separately, evolved differently, cover different activities, have different rules, and raise different public policy issues.
— <https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/not-ipr.html https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/not-ipr.html>
- Karellen 3y agoI think Cory Doctorow has an interesting counterpoint which is worth considering: > When you look at how “IP” is used by firms, a very precise – albeit colloquial – meaning emerges: > “IP is any law that I can invoke that allows me to control the conduct of my competitors, critics, and customers.” > That is, in a world of uncertainty, where other people’s unpredictability can erode your profits, mire you in scandal, or even tank your business, “IP” is a means of forcing other people to arrange their affairs to suit your needs, even if that undermines their own needs. -- https://locusmag.com/2020/09/cory-doctorow-ip/ https://locusmag.com/2020/09/cory-doctorow-ip/