From phm@a2e.de  Tue Nov 28 00:08:31 2000
Date: Tue, 28 Nov 2000 01:08:31 +0100 (CET)
From: PILCH Hartmut phm@a2e.de
Subject: [Patents] Re: your mail

> Now we really are in the realm of Newspeak. Property of course is owned, but 
> if it's a "resource" then it's anybody's. Maybe you should read Karl Popper 
> some time.

Can't ressources be owned?

I don't quite understand why you reference Popper.  One thing that Popper
never got tired of stressing was the distinction between world 2 and world
3, i.e. the subjective "intellectual" world (2) and the world ob
objectivised information (3).  Talking about "intellectual property" blurs
this distinction.  Of course what is in my intellect (world 2) is
mine.  But once I publish it, it becomes independent of me and no longer
naturally ownable.  Of course I can try to extend the concept of property
beyond the world of physical goods (world 1).   But that is an
artificial policy decision, and it can be socially disruptive, because I
could even establish political power by declaring just anything to be
"property".  

The term "intellectual property" is propagandistic.  In German we have a
more objective word called "law of immaterial goods"
(Immaterialgueterrecht). In most contexts however it would be best to just
be more specific and talk about patent, copyright, trademark or whatever
concrete law we are dealing with.  There is usually not much of a reason
to group these law systems together.
 
> If you deny that intangibles can be property do you also oppose copyright? 
> Trade mark protection? Design protection?

Thanks for making my point so clear.

We don't even deny that intangibles can be declared property.  Nor that
there can be situations where this is a good means of promoting progress.  
But we should avoid the term "intellectual property", because that leads
to wrong questions such as the one you ask above.  Opposing software
patents in no way means opposing trademarks or copyright.
 
> I fear Greg Aharonian is going to be pretty disappointed when he gets
> the translation of the German case on which Hartmut Pilch puts so much
> store. As for Kolle's paper, I must admit I've never heard of anyone
> taking him seriously before...

??
Kolle is a head of a department in the EPO.
He wrote the most well-founded articles on the issue in the 1970s.
Greg may be dissapointed to find that they are not easy to attack, and,
once translated, will weaken his arguing position substantially.

-phm





