Re: [Patents] pooling patents, version 2

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

On Fri, 2003-01-03 at 13:33, xdrudis@tinet.org wrote:
> Maybe I'm already confused by the social engineering hack. 
> 
> I think what you "own" (by a legal artifact) is some privilege 
> on an idea or a expression, not the idea.

Yes, you have an exclusive right to exploit an idea or technology.
I think that the term "own" is simply inappropriate because even
privileges are immaterial :-)

> Maybe intellectual privilege and industrial privilege would be better.

Well at this point I would call them "intellectual and industrial
exploitation monopoly", does I2EM sounds nicer? :-)

> Of course inmaterial assets are very different from material assets 
> (mainly because many people can use them at the same time, 
> can't be used up, etc.).


> But given that we are talking about 
> systems that artificially assign exclusivity on these inmaterial
> assets, I wonder if calling it (artificial) "property" is so serious.

calling artificial property would be as wrong as property alone, simply
because the problem is with the word property, not with an adjective
(intellectual, industrial, artificial ...)
Rigorously IMHO of course!

> Other may argue that property on material objects is also "artificial",
> or that all law is artificial.

Yes, this is the easiest objection you can make to my claim, and well
known :-)
But I have a simple (it can be argued as too simple) way to distinguish.
Property while not a natural right and enforced through "artificial"
laws is something you can have even in a world without laws, and is
determined by possession. Something you can exclusively possess in real
world is something that can be owned and so it is a property. A pen, a
fruit, even the earth. The difference in a world with laws is that
possession is regulated by laws and not by power of brute force.
Instead in a not law-regulated world, ideas cannot be owned in any way,
anyone can apprehend them and use them as they wish.

> As I said, you don't have to agree on treating inmaterial objects as
> property to say "intellectual property". 

You do not need to agree, but others will not know and will
misunderstand you at least partially (but in the most important thing
imho). Using the right terms make it self-evident what's your position.


> I think I'll simply say "authorship right (copyright)" or "patents"

If no better term can be found I agree it is better to not put in common
different terms and use them alone, it is not so much effort in the end.

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