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

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

On Sun, 2003-07-27 at 18:48, Hartmut Pilch wrote:
> > "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.

Sorry, but I do not think it is a good idea either.
While we know that copyright is not the same as patents, the 2 are used
to enforce each other in many occasions in software.

Currently copyright is too broad even if widely better than patents for
software.
Telling copyright covered works are " intellectual properties" in the
sense of classical property will simply give invincible weapons to
people that try to extend the copyright lifetime to the infinite.

Once that battle is won they will use the fact that some form of
intellectual exclusive rights are real property rights to enforce the
same idea into the patent system.

Simo.

-- 
Simo Sorce - simo.sorce@xsec.it
Xsec s.r.l. - http://www.xsec.it
via Durando 10 Ed. G - 20158 - Milano
mobile: +39 329 328 7702
tel. +39 02 2399 7130 - fax: +39 02 700 442 399