Re: [Patents] pooling patents, version 2

[<xdrudis@tinet.org>]

> 
> Agreed, IP is a wrong term.  However, I haven't found an alternative
> wording yet; maybe it is time we came up with an alternative word
> that covers patents, copyright and the whole field covered by IP,
> but that doesn't leave the false suggestion of ownership.
> 

IMHO opinion the problem is not "Property" but "intellectual". 
You may not like the fact that it is treated as property, but 
that does not make it a misnomer, because it is a form of property
(it is something the law allows to own, sell, license, etc.). 

I think the term should be "intellectual and industrial property".
That marks the needed difference between copyright (intellectual
property) and patents (industrial property). They are different 
things, different regimes for different achievements
 and shouldn't be mixed. You are free to say you don't want 
intellectual property or industrial property in a given field, 
or at all, and still there is no ambiguity. If you call patents 
and copyright "intellectual property", you fall in the ambiguity trap
that tries to justify applying one form of property to the wrong 
kind of innovations. 

Besides, saying "intellectual and industrial property" is the 
traditional (and current, at least in Catalonia) use and needs no
redefinitions. 

Calling murder "colateral damage" is abusive euphemism. Calling land 
mines "land mines" is not. The important is not whether you like
the concept, but whether you abuse language. IMHO.