X-Sympa-To: patents
Return-Path: <rms@gnu.org>
Delivered-To: patents@aful.org
Received: from fencepost.gnu.org (fencepost.gnu.org [199.232.76.164])
	by stabilite.aful.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A4BD64525B
	for <patents@aful.org>; Sat,  2 Aug 2003 06:54:04 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from rms by fencepost.gnu.org with local (Exim 4.20)
	id 19ioHS-0004VF-3I; Sat, 02 Aug 2003 00:46:10 -0400
From: Richard Stallman <rms@gnu.org>
To: Hartmut Pilch <phm@a2e.de>
Cc: seth.johnson@realmeasures.dyndns.org,
	C-FIT_Community@realmeasures.dyndns.org,
	C-FIT_Release_Community@realmeasures.dyndns.org,
	fairuse-discuss@nyfairuse.org, DMCA_Discuss@lists.microshaft.org,
	DMCA-Activists@gnu.org, patents@aful.org
In-reply-to: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0307302248020.5710-100000@querty.oas.a2e.de>
	(message from Hartmut Pilch on Wed, 30 Jul 2003 22:59:15 +0200 (CEST))
Subject: Re: [Patents] Washington Times: Internet Patents Divide Industry
Reply-To: rms@gnu.org
References:  <Pine.LNX.4.44.0307302248020.5710-100000@querty.oas.a2e.de>
Message-Id: <E19ioHS-0004VF-3I@fencepost.gnu.org>
Date: Sat, 02 Aug 2003 00:46:10 -0400
X-Validation-by: rms@gnu.org

    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".

Our enemies want people to focus on the fact that these
are "economic assets" and ignore the fact that they are
restrictions on what other people can do.
To call them any sort of "property" is playing into
the hands of our enemies.

