3 ms·
Stallman (I know, I know...) wrote that using "Intellectual Property" term is very very very wrong, specially because it makes people think some stuff is proper
by speeder 13y ago
Stallman (I know, I know...) wrote that using "Intellectual Property" term is very very very wrong, specially because it makes people think some stuff is property (it is not) and also make people conflate 4 different laws (Trademark, Patents, Copyright and I forgot the other one) as it was a single thing, and results in totally messed up ideas.
Trademark is not your property, trademark is a registration of who is who, so the government can punish people that are being funny and mislead costumers.
Happily the trademark regulating bodies are still more or less sane, and for example kicked Tim Langdell in the nuts for what he did.
Patents, are not your property either, your property is whatever you built (patents were not supposed to apply to software algorithms as the original laws were written :/), if you want to keep others from doing a copy of your product, actually you can do it like Coca-Cola did: Make it hard to copy, and hide its formula/blueprint/project in a safe.
Patents is a license to manufacture (and thus presumably sell and distribute) the product exclusively for some years, in exchange for you placing into public domain the details of how to create your product, so all humanity can create that product in the future (maybe if you get hit by a bus and cannot do it anymore, or your factory get hit by a meteor, and so on...)
Copyright is as the name says, the right of making copies, it is not supposed to be your property either, copyright when created it was not in the intention of the law authors that people would sell it around like if it was merchandise, back then copyright was created muddled and mixed with the concept of moral rights (that some countries later turned into law too).
The idea of copyright, at least in theory (the real reason for creation of copyright seemly was covert censorship), is that by ensuring the author can choose who can sell copies of his work for some years, he could be safe expending some years to create such work, and then as he sells this work though others, he has money ensured to create his next work and so on.
Mind you, copyright was NOT invented to stop common people from making copies of your work, in fact when it was made, many people were absolutely fine with that, copyright was made for example to stop the asshole behavior of a friend of Baldassare Castiglione, that took his borrowed manuscript, and not only made a copy for himself, but started to make so much copies, that Baldassare when he made a trip from Italy to Spain (when he started the trip that he left the book with his friend) upon arrival he was greeted by people saying that his book was awesome... (yes, he left the book in Italy and travelled to Spain, when he arrived on Spain, people on Spain had lots of copies of his still unfinished book made by a asshole friend in Italy)
- deleted 13y ago[deleted]
- SEMW 13y agoThe problem here is that you (and mtgx) are using the word "property" in a different way to the way lawyers use it, which is the way it's used in "intellectual property". To a lawyer, some bundle of rights is a 'property' right if it has a particular set of characteristics, such as being transferable and binding the world. By the legal definition, patents, copyright, and trademarks are definitely (intangible) property rights. (Well, mostly: in the UK a few of the rights in copyright, known as 'moral rights', aren't property rights: they give you an action in tort only, and can't be transferred). So e.g. you say "patents is a license to manufacture ... the product exclusively for some years". But this doesn't work. No kind of licence can give you the right to sue a third party: a licence can only stop you from being sued. (An 'exclusive' licence is just one where you the licensor has contracted not to grant a licence to anyone else). To sue a third party (who's made the product without a licence), you need the patent to give you a property right. (IANAL).
- Zigurd 13y agoIt would be equally correct to call them monopolies or, if you want to be really precise, "limited term monopoly grants." In the debate over the patent and copyright clause, the term "monopoly" was used. "Intellectual property" is as tendentious as Stallman says.