Re: [Patents] pooling patents, version 2

[Simo Sorce <simo.sorce@xsec.it>]

On Fri, 2003-01-03 at 12:03, xdrudis@tinet.org wrote:
> > 
> > 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.).

Of I think this way of thinking is one of the root problems instead.

You cannot "own" an idea, or a technology, they are immaterial things,
and no matter how hard you try there's no way to have possession of
immaterial things.

You may be the father of an idea or a technology, or be the licensor,
but you will never own such thing because it is NOT a "thing".

you are able to license or sell your grant (by the state) to license to
others. Patents like copyright are a state concession and they are in
fact limited in time, if they were something you can own you would have
not needed a special law regime for these matters.

Thinkin you can really "own" an idea is what in the end  proswpat people
want you to think so that the normal consequence is that you buy the
idea normal property laws can be applied to ideas. The term
"intellectual _property_" has been coined exactly for that reason.

On other list I called the term "Intellectual Property" a social
engineering hack.

Simo.

-- 
Simo Sorce - simo.sorce@xsec.it
Xsec s.r.l.
via Durando 10 Ed. G - 20158 - Milano
tel. +39 02 2399 7130 - fax: +39 02 700 442 399

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part