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

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

On Wed, 2003-07-30 at 22:59, Hartmut Pilch wrote:
> >     But "intellectual property" is not such an example.  The 
> > generalisation
> >     in this term is needed in many contexts.  We can not chose whether we 
> > want
> >     this concept to exist, we can only chose how to name it.
> 
> > I have very rarely found a situation where this generalization
> > (including patents, trademarks and copyrights) is useful for clear
> > thinking.  If there is such a case, I think your proposed term
> > "exclusion rights" would be a good choice, but we should first try
> > separating the different issues.
> 
> What about the case of accounting assets of a company?
> 
> Patents, copyrights, trademarks etc, like real estate property titles,
> have an estimatable value, can be sold etc.  Also, like real estate
> property titles, their value is derived from a right to forbid people to
> use certain ressources.

I don't think the fact you can sell something mean a property.
A service have a market value and is generally sold, but I find it hard
to think it is a property.
Eg: A lawyer make me a service I pay with hard money, but is his service
in any way like a property ??

> For this context, "immaterial property" seems just perfect to me (as would
> the lengthier "exclusion right based assets"), whereas "exclusion rights"
> still lacks meaning of "asset".

Yes but the problem is that you own a title, a monopoly, not the thing
you have the title for!

You own the patent not the idea. The problem is that immaterial property
carry the idea that you own "the idea", not "an exclusive right on the
idea".

While this difference is clear to a lawyer, it is not at all for the
common man (99% of population) and may cause many troubles as common man
thinks about that property using it's experience with material property
and it is easy to foul him into bad thinking.

Simo.