Re: [Patents] pooling patents, version 2

[anil.jagalur@philips.com]

IMHO Industrial property is confusing too and can be confused with the real 
estate of an industry  too. (Property being associated with that kind from a 
long time). Also, the term intellectual is used to distinguish it from the 
physical or material
property as this kind of property is born out of the intellect - copyright or 
patents. Is it the unnecessary humility (not a false one though) of engineers 
hesitating to call themselves intellectuals? I wonder.

J L Anil Kumar
Patent Searcher

Philips Intellectual Property & Standards
Visitor's address: Philips Innovation Campus, #1, Murphy Road, Ulsoor, 
Bangalore 560 008
Mail address: Philips Innovation Campus, #1, Murphy Road, Ulsoor, Bangalore 
560 008
Phone: +91 80 5579 000, Extn 5006, Facsimile: +91 80 5546 645
E-mail: anil.jagalur@philips.com
Intranet: pww.ips.philips.com
Internet:   www.ip.philips.com



                                                                              
                                                         
                                                                              
                                                         
                                                   To:   riel@nl.linux.org    
                                                         
                                                   cc:   Simo Sorce 
<simo.sorce@xsec.it>                                               
                                                    Xavi Drudis Ferran 
<xdrudis@tinet.org>                                             
                                                    Peter Vandenabeele 
<peter.vandenabeele@mind.be>                                    
               <xdrudis@tinet.org>                  "" <patents@aful.org>     
                                                         
                                                    (bcc: Anil 
Jagalur/BTC/IPS/PHILIPS)                                                
               Sent by:                            Subject:    Re: [Patents] 
pooling patents, version 2                                
               patents-owner@aful.org                                         
                                                         
                                                   Classification:            
                                                         
               01/03/2003 04:33 PM                                            
                                                         
                                                                              
                                                         
                                                                              
                                                         




>
> 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.