Re: [Patents] Gregnews: US report proves EP lies

[PILCH Hartmut <phm@a2e.de>]

>     I guess "Information Technology" would have a place at
>     http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/words-to-avoid.html , I was surprised not
>     to find it there yet.
> 
> I hesitate to say that the term is inherently misleading
> just because someone is making a silly semantic argument about it.

There seems to be an ambiguity in what terms like "technology" and
"engineering" mean.

One meaning is "applied natural science", the other "applied exact
science".

Since "natural science" has enormous prestige (due to the fact that
it is both exact and empirical and thereby can empower humankind,
realise the dream of flying etc, and create great wealth based on
a material economy or rivalous goods), many want to borrow that
prestige by extending terms that originally referred to applied
natural science only.  By this kind of extension they also try
to imply that rules that can be useful for rivalous goods, such
as patent law, must also be applied to non-rivalous goods.