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 8C74944D59
	for <patents@aful.org>; Wed, 30 Jul 2003 22:40:53 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from rms by fencepost.gnu.org with local (Exim 4.20)
	id 19hxdH-0001hT-1F; Wed, 30 Jul 2003 16:33:11 -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.4.44.0307281941200.5407-100000@querty.oas.a2e.de>
	(message from Hartmut Pilch on Mon, 28 Jul 2003 19:57:52 +0200 (CEST))
Subject: Re: [Patents] Washington Times: Internet Patents Divide Industry
Reply-To: rms@gnu.org
References:  <Pine.LNX.4.44.0307281941200.5407-100000@querty.oas.a2e.de>
Message-Id: <E19hxdH-0001hT-1F@fencepost.gnu.org>
Date: Wed, 30 Jul 2003 16:33:11 -0400
X-Validation-by: rms@gnu.org

    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.

