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

[Hartmut Pilch <phm@a2e.de>]

>     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.

"Property" implies both "exclusion" and "asset".  It doesn't focus on
either of the two.

> To call them any sort of "property" is playing into the hands of our
> enemies.

In some contexts the use of the term "property" may indeed serve the sole
purpose of focussing on the "asset" aspect.  And there is no doubt that
many critics of software patents play into the hands of their enemies by
using the word "intellectual property" in such contexts.

Still, the word is justified and useful in other contexts, and
stigmatising it is not as good as making puns about its abuse.

Note also that the cross-posted mailing lists do not necessarily form
we-groups with common enemies.  At least patents@aful.org is meant to be
an open forum where contrary viewpoints are welcome.

-- 
Hartmut Pilch, FFII & Eurolinux Alliance              tel. +49-89-18979927
Protecting Innovation against Patent Inflation       http://swpat.ffii.org/
160,000 votes 2000 firms against software patents    http://noepatents.org/