Re: [Patents] Washington Times: Internet Patents Divide Industry

[Hartmut Pilch <phm@a2e.de>]

> "Intellectual property" is not property.

The term could be turned around to be useful.
E.g. one could say that only an exclusion scope that it is so narrow that
it is attributable to an individual is "intellectual property".
I.e. only copyright, not patents.
By attributing a higher moral status to this individual "property", one
can then argue against its expropriation by means of patents.

The really insidious tactic consists not so much in claiming that some
kind of property-like right could exist, but in lumping everything from
trademark to patents together under it.

This latter use of "IP" or "IPR" is rather new.
Until recently, "intellectual property" referred to copyright, and most of
the others were called "industrial property".

> . . . Okay, I just scanned that page at your URL (text pasted below sans
> internal links), and my reaction is generally, I think you have pages upon
> pages of useful information and references on the swpat.ffii site.  What
> leaps out at me is that after that analysis goes on (and I believe after a
> certain point, you get a pretty good idea what the key points are), the next
> step is to convert to simple headline pitches for action.

Indeed.

This text (http://swpat.ffii.org/papers/eubsa-swpat0202/tech/) is mainly
needed to put information at the fingertips of a few dozen people who are
standing at the forefront of efforts to debunk misleading arguments.  From
various discussions and questions sent to me it appeared that this kind of
education effort is necessary.   When you have a few dozen more informed
people, it becomes easier to develop headline pitches for action.

-- 
Hartmut Pilch, FFII & Eurolinux Alliance              tel. +49-89-18979927
Protecting Innovation against Patent Inflation       http://swpat.ffii.org/
155,000 votes 2000 firms against software patents    http://noepatents.org/